Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net
From: "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com>
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 20:36:48 +0100
Organization: ~
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <op.yzqbfm2ajs98qf@red.lan>
References: <op.yy6af5dyjs98qf@red.lan> <D5228FC1.A10D1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <0d5tfcpgi89i1smpll23n6vs3rbkblr20m@4ax.com> <D523E77A.A18CF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <lltufctceftthnd92pbvhks7nhkk59g0cc@4ax.com> <D524C75E.A1AA3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <2c0vfcl7j53af14vtqrokilutjf1ilc369@4ax.com> <D524DAED.A1B0A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <L5RLA.35127$Tn5.15756@fx12.iad> <8fpvfcdh99pg724pg6crt7r2gbk46l2vjq@4ax.com> <D5254194.A1D5A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <7di1gc1ineq138254msb6vunp3h6tnpehu@4ax.com> <op.yzp2tj1hjs98qf@red.lan> <D530B5E9.A3619%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yzp7f5sijs98qf@red.lan> <D530BFB1.A3692%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yzp9txdojs98qf@red.lan> <D530CC5A.A36C2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.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:412875 comp.sys.mac.system:106258 alt.comp.os.windows-10:41900 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1844

On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:17:30 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 12:02 PM, in article op.yzp9txdojs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:23:29 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7f5sijs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> 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 <vbg>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> I think my above sentence is a good example of why that is not the case. :)

I had no trouble reading it.  So what was your point?

-- 
Pat Glenn, weightlifting commentator - "And this is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning and it was amazing!"