RealGM

Last season was a frustrating one for Portland Trail Blazers guard/forward Matisse Thybulle. The veteran wing didn't make his season debut until March 16. Once he was able to suit up, Thybulle played in the Blazers final 15 games, averaging a career-high 7.5 points per game on 48% shooting, including 44% on three-pointers.

Now, Thybulle is looking forward to next season, even giving indications that he plans to pick up his $11.55 million player option for next season.

"I can’t wait to get a full season under our belts," Thybulle said. "Because this whole year, especially as we forged our identity as being a defensive team, I was just chomping at the bit."

The former two-time All-Defensive Team selection is excited that Chauncey Billups received a contract extension. Thybulle expressed confidence in Portland continuing to improve into next season.

"Chauncey getting his extension is really exciting and definitely makes me optimistic for running it back with these guys," Thybulle said.

Via Aaron Fentress/The Oregonian

*champing at the bit


I don't blame him, because Google autocorrect doesn't even know the word champing

Melwing wrote:*champing at the bit


I don't blame him, because Google autocorrect doesn't even know the word champing

It’s chomping, bruh. As in chewing on it intensely.

That's crazy he averaged a career high with 7.5 a month left in the season in good shooting stats. This is what bothered Sixers fans too, the % was there but the attempts weren't when they were needed. He could have gone outside his comfort zone in a lost season but no this is just who he is

TMac Culloch wrote:That's crazy he averaged a career high with 7.5 a month left in the season in good shooting stats. This is what bothered Sixers fans too, the % was there but the attempts weren't when they were needed. He could have gone outside his comfort zone in a lost season but no this is just who he is

Hes an all nba level defender though, great guy off the bench like a 7th man type

PDXKnight wrote:

TMac Culloch wrote:That's crazy he averaged a career high with 7.5 a month left in the season in good shooting stats. This is what bothered Sixers fans too, the % was there but the attempts weren't when they were needed. He could have gone outside his comfort zone in a lost season but no this is just who he is

Hes an all nba level defender though, great guy off the bench like a 7th man type

He’s a great fit alongside all those chuckers in portland

HotelVitale wrote:

Melwing wrote:*champing at the bit


I don't blame him, because Google autocorrect doesn't even know the word champing

It’s chomping, bruh. As in chewing on it intensely.

There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

They needed to round up to say he averaged a career high of 7.5 ppg... and it's the most irrelevant stat they could have brought up about Thybulle. He is a defensive specialist. Two much more relevant stats to mention would be his career-best 3.8 STL and 6 REB Per 36.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:

Melwing wrote:*champing at the bit


I don't blame him, because Google autocorrect doesn't even know the word champing

It’s chomping, bruh. As in chewing on it intensely.

There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

puja21 wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:
It’s chomping, bruh. As in chewing on it intensely.

There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

I tried to stop an argument with a little levity and you want to start it up again?

OK, here goes...
Yes "champing" is the original phrase. But champing and chomping mean the same thing (for all intents and purposes) so the expression still works. (Even if the purpose is not intensive.)

Every time someone says they "could care less" they inferring that they "could not care less". So the expression is nonsensical.
"For all intensive purposes" and "for all intents & purposes" clearly mean two different things. My wife actually had here appendix taken out yesterday... We had to go to the (ICU) Intent & Care Unit!
Fringe and French? There are fringe benefits to being French, but are there any French benefits to being on the fringe?

puja21 wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:
It’s chomping, bruh. As in chewing on it intensely.

There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

Lol no. Those are examples of people mishearing a totally different word or phrase and changing the meaning of the saying completely. 'Champing' is just an old version of the word that has now became 'chomping'--both meaning to chew or bite at something--and 'champing' has completely fallen out of use in English anywhere in the world.

So insisting on using 'champing' is insisting on using an older version word that we don't use, which is weird in and of itself. (Be like saying 'no you have to say 'fringe bienefit' since that's the word origin.') But in this case it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means, just sounds like random words to them (even if they get the gist of the expression). It's also not like 'champing at the bit' is some direct quote from Shakespeare or something that people know the original of, it's just an old phrase, no reason not to update it to like 19th century English.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

puja21 wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

I tried to stop an argument with a little levity and you want to start it up again?

OK, here goes...
Yes "champing" is the original phrase. But champing and chomping mean the same thing (for all intents and purposes) so the expression still works. (Even if the purpose is not intensive.)

Every time someone says they "could care less" they inferring that they "could not care less". So the expression is nonsensical.
"For all intensive purposes" and "for all intents & purposes" clearly mean two different things. My wife actually had here appendix taken out yesterday... We had to go to the (ICU) Intent & Care Unit!
Fringe and French? There are fringe benefits to being French, but are there any French benefits to being on the fringe?

laughed aloud at the use of all intents and purposes

HotelVitale wrote:

puja21 wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:There won't be any champing in POR while Scoot is their PG... but lots of chomping. Chomping all day!

Believe it or not, champing and chomping are both correct... The more you know!

Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

Lol no. Those are examples of people mishearing a totally different word or phrase and changing the meaning of the saying completely. 'Champing' is just an old version of the word that has now became 'chomping'--both meaning to chew or bite at something--and 'champing' has completely fallen out of use in English anywhere in the world.

So insisting on using 'champing' is insisting on using an older version word that we don't use, which is weird in and of itself. (Be like saying 'no you have to say 'fringe bienefit' since that's the word origin.') But in this case it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means, just sounds like random words to them (even if they get the gist of the expression). It's also not like 'champing at the bit' is some direct quote from Shakespeare or something that people know the original of, it's just an old phrase, no reason not to update it to like 19th century English.

i will concede you are more likely to confuse people who don't know about champing

But this is wrong:
"'Champing' is just an old version of the word that has now became 'chomping'-"

1) it's not "Old English" -- champing is still common 21st century parlance within equestrian, stabling etc... most people are just not in that world.

2) It's merely a coincidence that chomping sounds "similar" -- they do have different etymology/meanings. Champing is specifically impatient/restless chewing and chomp describes "noisy" chewing.

And the colloquialism is specifically restless anxiety, ergo "chomp" is wrong.
But chomp is a more commonly heard word and is misapplied by users of who aren't familiar with the other word or the origin. It "feels" right in the same way that "in tote" kind of makes sense and feels right.

This is also a bad reason to champion any mistake: "it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means"

Half the country says "real-it-ter" instead of "real-tour" and "sherbert" instead of "sure-bit" (sherbet).

There was a time when we demanded the ignorant to adapt.

And today we put obvious warnings on things like ammonia, bleach and paint reminding people "DO NOT DRINK'" and societies entertain frivolous lawsuits ... and most importantly facts are no longer facts.

We need to get back to the era of personal accountability -- force the masses to step it up

As a great comic said: You wanna drink paint? Do it. Have a Sherwin-Williams Christmas.

puja21 wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:

puja21 wrote:
Chomping is only correct in the same way that both "irregardless" and regardless are (now) correct; due to a preponderance of (mistaken) normalized usage ... eventually the error is added to Webster's.

I imagine one day the former (incorrect) for all of these will be deemed correct:

"could* care less" joining "couldn't care less"

"for all intensive* purposes" versus "for all intents & purposes"

"french* benefits" versus "fringe benefits"

in tote* versus "in tow"

It's the grammatical equivalent of surrender.

Lol no. Those are examples of people mishearing a totally different word or phrase and changing the meaning of the saying completely. 'Champing' is just an old version of the word that has now became 'chomping'--both meaning to chew or bite at something--and 'champing' has completely fallen out of use in English anywhere in the world.

So insisting on using 'champing' is insisting on using an older version word that we don't use, which is weird in and of itself. (Be like saying 'no you have to say 'fringe bienefit' since that's the word origin.') But in this case it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means, just sounds like random words to them (even if they get the gist of the expression). It's also not like 'champing at the bit' is some direct quote from Shakespeare or something that people know the original of, it's just an old phrase, no reason not to update it to like 19th century English.

i will concede you are more likely to confuse people who don't know about champing

but this is a terrible defense: "it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means"

Half the country says "real-it-ter" instead of "real-tour"
"Sherbert" instead of "sure-bit" (Sherbet)

There was a time when we made ignorant people adapt.

And today we put warnings on ammonia, bleach and paint reminding people "DO NOT DRINK'"

We need to get back to the era of personal accountability -- force the masses to step it up

As a great comic said: You wanna drink paint? Do it. Have a Sherwin-Williams Christmas.

LOL, man, you can't be real. In case you are I hope you'll reconsider this particular point as your crusade. No one really knows what 'champing' is, it's not a word we use at all in English now. It's ridiculous to call people 'ignorant' for not knowing a word that hasn't been used in regular English for a long time. And extremely weird to think that's like a huge fault of ignorant masses.

I already explained this several times in the last post. What you're asking for is literally like I said--that people must say 'fringe bien-faits' instead of 'fringe benefits,' or whatever else. The word has simply changed now and we now use chomping, which is a word that I grew up using and that I hear people say regularly now. It makes you seem like pedantic weirdo to insist that everyone must use some old timey phrasing for no reason other than that some books in the past used it. Also feels pretty loser-y to think you're superior for that. And pretty pathetic to make not updating archaic phrases equivalent to people not being able to avoid killing themselves with poision.

HotelVitale wrote:

puja21 wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:
Lol no. Those are examples of people mishearing a totally different word or phrase and changing the meaning of the saying completely. 'Champing' is just an old version of the word that has now became 'chomping'--both meaning to chew or bite at something--and 'champing' has completely fallen out of use in English anywhere in the world.

So insisting on using 'champing' is insisting on using an older version word that we don't use, which is weird in and of itself. (Be like saying 'no you have to say 'fringe bienefit' since that's the word origin.') But in this case it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means, just sounds like random words to them (even if they get the gist of the expression). It's also not like 'champing at the bit' is some direct quote from Shakespeare or something that people know the original of, it's just an old phrase, no reason not to update it to like 19th century English.

i will concede you are more likely to confuse people who don't know about champing

but this is a terrible defense: "it also means that people can't understand what the phrase means"

Half the country says "real-it-ter" instead of "real-tour"
"Sherbert" instead of "sure-bit" (Sherbet)

There was a time when we made ignorant people adapt.

And today we put warnings on ammonia, bleach and paint reminding people "DO NOT DRINK'"

We need to get back to the era of personal accountability -- force the masses to step it up

As a great comic said: You wanna drink paint? Do it. Have a Sherwin-Williams Christmas.

LOL, man, you can't be real. In case you are I hope you'll reconsider this particular point as your crusade. No one really knows what 'champing' is, it's not a word we use at all in English now. It's ridiculous to call people 'ignorant' for not knowing a word that hasn't been used in regular English for a long time. And extremely weird to think that's like a huge fault of ignorant masses.

I already explained this several times in the last post. What you're asking for is literally like I said--that people must say 'fringe bien-faits' instead of 'fringe benefits,' or whatever else. The word has simply changed now and we now use chomping, which is a word that I grew up using and that I hear people say regularly now. It makes you seem like pedantic weirdo to insist that everyone must use some old timey phrasing for no reason other than that some books in the past used it. Also feels pretty loser-y to think you're superior for that. And pretty pathetic to make not updating archaic phrases equivalent to people not being able to avoid killing themselves with poision.

you lost me when you lost your cool with loser, pedantic, weirdo, pathetic

delivering a judgement of superiority accompanied by this language doesn't land

HotelVitale wrote:. It's ridiculous to call people 'ignorant' for not knowing a word that hasn't been used in regular English for a long time.

So add 'ignorant' to the list of words you misunderstand. It's not an insult, it literally just means you don't know. So let's restate your complaint: "It's ridiculous to say people "don't know" when they don't know a word...."

Yeah, pretty dumb. You misuse/misunderstand 'ignorant' just like (and for the same reasons as) 'chomping'. At what point does language stop mattering? This certainly isn't the place to debate that, I suppose.

Melwing wrote:It's not an insult, it literally just means you don't know

Thanks, I started typing this out too, but it seemed in vain given the tone had shifted so far

Melwing wrote:This certainly isn't the place to debate that, I suppose.

Safe to say we proved that here