You mean you *couldn't* care less?

His Tory lordship is correct.

[link|http://www.bartleby.com/68/29/1529.html|Bartleby]:

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923\ufffd). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

could care less, couldn\ufffdt care less

Although many have tried, no one has yet satisfactorily explained how the negative fell out of the older and accepted couldn\ufffdt care less, although logic of course says that could care less makes no sense. Both forms are clich\ufffds, and both are certainly best restricted to the lower Conversational levels and the most Informal of writing. But could care less could also earn you the scorn of logic lovers and clich\ufffd haters alike. Avoid it as Nonstandard.

I agree. It's one of those idioms that people say without thinking about. Rather like "The point is is that ..."

It reminds me of that famous song, sung by Billie Holiday, The Platters, Fred Sanford, and others: "If I couldn't care less" - [link|http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/B/Billie-Holiday/If-I-Didn't-Care.html|Jack Lawrence / Milton Ager]. ;-p

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #169,283 by pwhysall 8/14/04 1:00:37 AM Reply	You mean you couldn't care less? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #169,292 by deSitter 8/14/04 3:51:22 AM Reply	No, that's an American idiom ..and everyone knows exactly what it means. -drl
Post #169,296 by pwhysall 8/14/04 4:50:28 AM Reply	No they fucking don't, you philistinic colonial baboon. :-P A chap has to maintain the standards expected of this forum. It's "I could care less", when what you really mean is "I couldn't care less"? And I thought British English was a weird language. (It is.) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #169,306 by bepatient 8/14/04 9:02:06 AM Reply	It doesn't read correctly... ...because when spoken it is done extremely sarcastically. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #169,308 by admin 8/14/04 9:18:29 AM Reply	Nopers. As Bill pointed out, when you say it sarcastically, it takes on a different meaning. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #169,309 by Another Scott 8/14/04 9:35:38 AM Reply	"Avoid it as Nonstandard" His Tory lordship is correct. [link\|http://www.bartleby.com/68/29/1529.html\|Bartleby]: Kenneth G. Wilson (1923\ufffd). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. could care less, couldn\ufffdt care less Although many have tried, no one has yet satisfactorily explained how the negative fell out of the older and accepted couldn\ufffdt care less, although logic of course says that could care less makes no sense. Both forms are clich\ufffds, and both are certainly best restricted to the lower Conversational levels and the most Informal of writing. But could care less could also earn you the scorn of logic lovers and clich\ufffd haters alike. Avoid it as Nonstandard. I agree. It's one of those idioms that people say without thinking about. Rather like "The point is is that ..." It reminds me of that famous song, sung by Billie Holiday, The Platters, Fred Sanford, and others: "If I couldn't care less" - [link\|http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/B/Billie-Holiday/If-I-Didn't-Care.html\|Jack Lawrence / Milton Ager]. ;-p Cheers, Scott.
Post #169,312 by admin 8/14/04 10:19:11 AM Reply	Missing the point. Yes, it's not logical. When spoken straightforwardly. But as has been pointed out twice, saying it sarcastically gives it a new meaning. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #169,316 by pwhysall 8/14/04 10:40:41 AM Reply	saying it sarcastically ...in the USA gives it a different meaning. Saying it sarcastically over here simply marks you out as a loony, which is why I was confused. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #169,318 by boxley 8/14/04 10:47:08 AM Reply	dont come here and ask someone to bum a fag then "delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #169,319 by bepatient 8/14/04 11:06:03 AM Reply	or knock up your girlfriend, for that matter. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #169,327 by Another Scott 8/14/04 12:26:04 PM Reply	Trouble is, too many don't say it sarcastically. ;-)
Post #169,328 by ben_tilly 8/14/04 12:31:19 PM Reply	And we've discussed this before Bzzt. Wrong. The saying means exactly what it says. Would it be clearer to you if the saying was, "I suppose* that I could care less."? The claim is that it is possible* to care less. The fact that you need to think about and say it indicates that that possibility is remote and unlikely. Of course I pointed this out to you before, but you didn't seem to get it then either. I guess that someone out there could be stupid enough to find this kind of roundabout insult even more opaque than you do. Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #169,331 by folkert 8/14/04 2:49:23 PM Reply	And I could not have cared less, then! But, I supposed I found out I could care less. I guess I was careless. /me is not an asshole... all of the time. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #169,417 by Ashton 8/15/04 9:43:11 PM Reply	Sorry, but.. I believe this has become an authentic Idiomatic Expression which, despite the possibility of 'interpreting it' as you suggest: always and everywhere meant and means: [About the topic raised] I don't give a shit\ufffd!! (And a soup\ufffdon of.. See how non-PC I Am !?! cha cha cha -- in recent years) That's my brilliant analysis and.. I'm Sticking To It (see how incisive, perspicuous and Resolute I Am ??) moi
Post #169,497 by jb4 8/16/04 12:18:45 PM Reply	Peter, try reading it like this: (the elipsis is in square brackets) "I could care less about Norm [but I don't]." or perhaps... "I could care less about Norm [if I wanted to, but since that would take additional effort, and I have already expended too much effort already on this, I don't]. See? Americlish! It's a wonderful language... ;-\ufffd jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #169,499 by drewk 8/16/04 12:24:47 PM Reply	No, I think it really is an implied 'not' Same way, "The server needs upgraded," means, "The server needs to be upgraded." Or, "The trash needs emptied," for, "The trash needs to be emptied." Dropping the "to be" has become very common the last couple of years. It bugs the shit out of me. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #169,504 by ben_tilly 8/16/04 1:15:44 PM Reply	Isn't it annoying though... When Shakespeare's question is shortened down to, "or not". Delivered sarcastically, of course. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #169,508 by FuManChu 8/16/04 1:31:12 PM Reply	As was the original ...delivered sarcastically, that is. Hamlet knows Polonius is eavesdropping.

Welcome to IWETHEY!