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 21:48:41 +0100
Organization: ~
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <op.yzqerf2fjs98qf@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> <op.yzqbfm2ajs98qf@red.lan> <D530D300.A36FA%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:412911 comp.sys.mac.system:106270 alt.comp.os.windows-10:41912 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1856

On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:45:52 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 12:36 PM, in article op.yzqbfm2ajs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> One that went over your head.

You claimed it was wrong to write like you did, yet I read it perfectly.  You failed miserably like you always do.

-- 
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway