Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 20:02:11 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <0d5tfcpgi89i1smpll23n6vs3rbkblr20m@4ax.com> <2c0vfcl7j53af14vtqrokilutjf1ilc369@4ax.com> <8fpvfcdh99pg724pg6crt7r2gbk46l2vjq@4ax.com> <7di1gc1ineq138254msb6vunp3h6tnpehu@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:412854 comp.sys.mac.system:106242 alt.comp.os.windows-10:41883 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1828 On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:23:29 +0100, Snit wrote: > On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7f5sijs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" wrote: > > ... >>>>>>> Neither do I, of course. If I had, I wouldn't have known it should >>>>>>> have been "proofread." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wasn't castigating him for the error; note the . >>>>>> >>>>>> No offense was taken... and it is rather funny to make a mistake with the >>>>>> word "proofread". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, my point exactly. >>>> >>>> Why do you call it a mistake? Proofread and proof read mean the same. >>> >>> Using onelook.com I do not see the "proof read" variant, nor doing a quick >>> Google search. I accept it as an error. >> >> It's just an alternative. What else could it mean? I am reading it again for >> proof it is correct, so proof read. > > Da' fakt dat hit kan B undrestood dose knot mene et iz korekt. Correct is meaningless if it works. -- Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them.