Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53606 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-12-21 11:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-12-28 18:55 +1300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 392 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-21 11:21 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-21 21:09 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-21 13:15 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-21 13:54 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-22 11:21 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-21 18:36 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2013-12-22 16:45 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 00:44 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-23 23:47 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-22 21:58 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-23 09:13 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-24 16:45 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-22 23:38 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-22 21:58 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-23 19:09 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-23 09:05 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-23 18:58 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-24 14:06 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-23 18:36 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-24 18:14 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 07:56 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 09:14 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:19 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-24 17:45 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-12-25 01:43 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-25 08:58 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 00:29 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-24 18:51 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 00:59 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-24 19:14 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 07:59 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 12:07 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 09:36 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 12:52 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-24 16:31 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-24 17:11 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:49 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-24 23:56 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:15 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 16:59 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:22 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe "Ed H." <fake@notreal.net> - 2013-12-27 13:30 -0600
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-24 22:02 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:20 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 07:58 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-24 13:09 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 12:18 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 09:38 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-24 17:18 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:52 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-24 18:44 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 17:03 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:24 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-24 23:05 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:50 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2013-12-25 13:28 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 15:52 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 13:54 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 17:10 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:26 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-25 04:34 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:52 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 21:34 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-24 15:16 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:11 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-26 19:00 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-27 08:20 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-27 10:48 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-27 18:52 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-28 10:20 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:50 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-28 09:27 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:51 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-28 13:07 -0800
Re: Semantics Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Semantics Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-29 12:34 -0500
Re: Semantics Gripe Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-29 14:53 -0800
Re: Semantics Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-29 10:56 -0800
Re: Semantics Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-29 21:55 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 14:04 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2013-12-26 16:28 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-24 18:22 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-25 00:02 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 13:15 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-26 23:30 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-27 10:51 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-27 18:36 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-27 21:08 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-12-24 18:03 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:55 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-01 11:29 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-02 09:10 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 13:49 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-01 15:38 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-02 13:16 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-01 17:31 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-01-02 09:10 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-02 11:47 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-01-02 22:17 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-02 15:29 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-02 18:33 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 13:46 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-01-01 15:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-23 23:42 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 08:03 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-12-22 10:49 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-12-22 16:54 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-26 10:37 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-26 18:32 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-26 05:36 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-26 09:30 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-31 18:35 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-23 10:59 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-22 11:34 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 00:45 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 04:58 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-21 20:11 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-22 15:43 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-22 11:53 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-22 22:35 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2013-12-22 18:08 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-23 09:07 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-23 04:12 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-23 15:15 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-23 15:39 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-23 18:46 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 21:03 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-24 04:52 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-22 22:02 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 01:04 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-23 19:41 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-23 11:27 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-23 09:55 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-23 13:33 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 21:05 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 21:04 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-23 18:40 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 22:19 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2013-12-24 10:15 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 08:01 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-22 15:10 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-22 18:23 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-22 15:29 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 00:49 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-23 02:35 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-22 10:32 -0600
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-22 12:36 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-22 11:40 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-22 16:06 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 23:41 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-23 09:26 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-23 18:47 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-23 23:39 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 00:46 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-24 19:10 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-25 04:34 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-25 14:17 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-25 18:36 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-26 01:18 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-26 07:59 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-26 05:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-26 09:53 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-26 21:27 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-27 02:06 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe W DiDomenico <joedid@outlook.com> - 2013-12-27 08:03 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-27 10:43 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-26 19:16 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe W DiDomenico <joedid@outlook.com> - 2013-12-27 08:04 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 20:00 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-19 10:42 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-26 09:52 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-26 10:44 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe henry999@eircom.net (Henry) - 2013-12-27 13:22 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-27 10:18 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-27 15:57 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe henry999@eircom.net (Henry) - 2013-12-27 18:34 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-27 12:43 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-28 14:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 11:00 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 10:57 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-28 09:11 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 14:18 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe Di Domenico <joedid@email.com> - 2013-12-28 14:46 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe henry999@eircom.net (Henry) - 2013-12-31 11:54 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 10:47 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 20:04 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 15:55 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-19 21:20 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-19 17:21 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-19 17:22 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-04-20 03:16 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-20 00:00 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-19 08:40 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-04-19 10:54 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 20:02 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-19 08:34 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-19 15:09 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-04-20 08:51 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-04-19 22:37 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 12:36 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-20 07:03 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 17:33 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-04-21 07:57 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 03:23 +0200
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-04-20 03:11 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 09:35 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 15:51 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-26 15:56 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-26 17:07 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-27 12:05 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-27 21:52 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe W DiDomenico <joedid@outlook.com> - 2013-12-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:47 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-26 09:48 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-27 09:38 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 19:59 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 19:58 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-23 22:18 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 04:06 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-24 14:19 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-24 10:17 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-24 08:03 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-24 13:14 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-24 20:01 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-24 15:19 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 12:14 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-24 16:05 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 15:55 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 13:07 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 17:08 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 17:25 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-28 14:46 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 09:11 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 20:54 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-24 13:00 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 10:21 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-24 12:12 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-25 09:40 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 13:37 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-25 04:42 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-24 16:20 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-24 09:49 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-24 19:59 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-24 15:38 -0600
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-24 21:04 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-24 20:03 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-25 10:53 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-25 11:17 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-04-19 19:55 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-19 13:42 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-19 06:52 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-04-20 09:24 +1000
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-04-19 22:35 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 23:56 -0400
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-19 21:02 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-19 21:16 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-20 13:43 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-28 16:34 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-28 18:39 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:45 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-28 14:57 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-22 23:36 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-23 03:20 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-22 22:07 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-23 09:56 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-23 04:10 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-22 11:45 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 23:38 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Wes Groleau <Usenet@Grolea.us> - 2013-12-23 00:50 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-28 16:24 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-28 08:55 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-28 04:27 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-28 10:09 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Joe W DiDomenico <joedid@outlook.com> - 2013-12-28 09:39 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:37 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-29 08:18 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-28 22:36 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-29 15:07 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-28 17:27 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:24 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-30 17:34 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-30 10:04 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 10:31 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-30 19:25 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 13:56 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 11:48 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-01-02 15:10 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 01:21 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-02 21:21 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:34 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-28 22:17 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 11:06 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-28 09:15 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-29 09:42 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 16:08 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-28 14:01 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 17:49 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 18:04 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 19:06 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 22:17 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 22:38 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-29 01:12 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 21:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:27 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 00:51 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-30 01:54 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 11:57 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-12-30 07:39 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-30 08:55 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe JoeWolfDee <joedid@email.com> - 2013-12-30 11:13 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-30 17:11 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-30 18:29 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-30 17:32 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-31 15:56 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-30 21:32 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 20:44 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-31 18:25 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 22:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 10:41 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-31 15:27 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-31 02:33 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 10:42 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-01 09:50 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-31 14:24 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 14:51 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-31 17:09 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 09:34 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-01-10 18:16 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-31 13:04 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 03:03 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 20:44 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-01-10 18:20 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-11 16:17 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-31 18:29 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 10:46 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-31 14:31 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 12:42 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-30 09:27 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-30 19:29 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 11:52 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-30 16:12 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 17:53 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-29 08:01 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 05:31 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 10:39 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 14:38 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 12:55 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-29 10:28 +1300
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 17:59 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-12-28 18:58 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-28 23:26 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-28 21:46 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-29 01:21 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-12-28 09:23 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-29 08:44 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:22 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-29 21:13 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-30 00:21 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-29 22:44 -0700
Re: Grammar Gripe Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-29 21:49 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-30 09:26 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 12:14 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-30 09:23 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 12:51 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-30 16:11 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 21:13 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-30 11:54 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-30 17:26 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-30 22:41 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-30 18:11 -0500
Re: Grammar Gripe Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-30 23:25 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-29 22:37 -0700
Re: Uniqueness Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-31 13:21 +0100
Re: Uniqueness gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 10:52 -0800
Re: Uniqueness Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-31 14:47 -0700
Re: Uniqueness gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-12-31 14:55 -0800
Re: Uniqueness Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-01-01 00:32 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-22 23:33 +0100
Re: Grammar Gripe Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-23 10:57 +1100
Re: Grammar Gripe bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-12-23 00:00 +0000
Re: Grammar Gripe RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2013-12-27 21:36 -0800
Re: Grammar Gripe Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-28 18:55 +1300
Page 19 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 Next page →
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-28 23:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <281220132326152069%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #53987 |
J Burns: > > > > Really! "Very" came into English meaning "real." Davoud: > > But not surprising, given that "very" is from a Latin root meaning > > "true." See "verity," "verify," and related words. In my mind, "very" > > and "truly" are often interchangeable, as in "very large" and "truly > > large." Barry Margolin: > Yes, because we should obviously use all words with the sense they had > 2,000 years ago. Tut tut! That's a bit melodramatic, and a distortion of the meaning my post, which I think is not at all obscure, that "very" is today--not 2000 years ago, but today--sometimes interchangeable with "really" or "truly." -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-28 21:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013122821463691837-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #53987 |
On 2013-12-28 23:58:21 +0000, Barry Margolin said: > In article <281220131759278981%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> > wrote: > >> J Burns: >>>> Really! "Very" came into English meaning "real." >> >> gtr: >>> That's really very quite interesting. >> >> But not surprising, given that "very" is from a Latin root meaning >> "true." See "verity," "verify," and related words. In my mind, "very" >> and "truly" are often interchangeable, as in "very large" and "truly >> large." > > Yes, because we should obviously use all words with the sense they had > 2,000 years ago. > > Actually, isn't the belief that "immaculate conception" refers to virgin > birth based on just such a use? Recently noted from the British Medical Journal survey; 1 out of 5 women claim their pregnancy took place while they were virgins. That's a very high number of virgin births! It also reports that recontacting participants a number of years after the initial study indicated that many women who were not virgins in the first survey, after a number of years, became virgins! Virginity is a more flexible and malleable concept that we had previously understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 01:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52bfbf71$0$12533$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #54002 |
On 13-12-29 00:46, gtr wrote: > Recently noted from the British Medical Journal survey; 1 out of 5 > women claim their pregnancy took place while they were virgins. That's > a very high number of virgin births! Yeah, that is very common. British men wank on buses, leave their semen on bus seats and women become pregnant when they sit on those seats. :-) > It also reports that recontacting participants a number of years after > the initial study indicated that many women who were not virgins in the > first survey, after a number of years, became virgins! This happened to Madonna in the 1980s, she even wrote a song about it. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/like-a-virgin/id80815235?i=80815215 > Virginity is a more flexible and malleable concept that we had > previously understood. If a lady doesn't remember her boyfriend penetrating and thrusting in her, what does it say about the boyfriend's abilities ? Seriously though, with various drugs, it is quite possible a lady wouldn't remember having had sex with a guy once she wakes up the next morning and the drugs have stopped blanking her mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-28 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <j4qdnRPIm7ONlCLPnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #53923 |
Barry OGrady wrote: > Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means > one only. I've never been entirely convinced of that: A is unique because she is the only person to have characteristic X. B is unique because she is the only person to have characteristic Y, and also because she is the only person to have characteristic Z. Is B not then more unique than A? Paul Magnussen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 08:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-A292F8.08444329122013@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #53947 |
In article <j4qdnRPIm7ONlCLPnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote: > Barry OGrady wrote: > > > Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means > > one only. > > I've never been entirely convinced of that: > > A is unique because she is the only person to have characteristic X. > > B is unique because she is the only person to have characteristic Y, and > also because she is the only person to have characteristic Z. > > Is B not then more unique than A? The grammar boys will tell you no, A and B are unique in respect to different things, that unique just means one of a kind. Your B is not *more* than one of a kind. But I think you are perfectly right, it communicates a point... -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 04:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlc1t8o.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #53923 |
In message <i1osb9h9is48b179l8bnp28svninqongt9@4ax.com> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:32:55 -0600, Matthew Lybanon > <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote: >>In article <SalmonEgg-865C82.11210121122013@news80.forteinc.com>, >> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> I have observed, on this group and many others, that sentences are used >>> without a subject. After reading them a time or two, I realize that in >>> most situations but not all, merely adding "I " would correct the >>> grammar. >> >>People are bombarded by bad grammar and other barbarisms constantly. >>When did "gift" become a verb? And the people who produce television >>commercials don't know (or don't care) the difference between "every >>day" and "everyday" (and television shows are "all new"). But the most >>annoying (to me) example is "look-a-like." > Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means > one only. Sure, but there are degrees of unique. Every single person is unique, every snowflake is unique, but a person who is 8 feet tall and has purple skin with yellow dots could be described as very unique, as could an eight pointed snowflake the size of your hand. Somehow, despite every person/snowflake being unique, these examples are *more* unique. That said, I agree that [modifier] unique is damn annoying. -- Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart. Captain Renault: That is my *least* vulnerable spot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 21:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013122921132247359-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #54028 |
On 2013-12-30 04:22:40 +0000, Lewis said: > In message <i1osb9h9is48b179l8bnp28svninqongt9@4ax.com> > Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:32:55 -0600, Matthew Lybanon >> <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> In article <SalmonEgg-865C82.11210121122013@news80.forteinc.com>, >>> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have observed, on this group and many others, that sentences are used >>>> without a subject. After reading them a time or two, I realize that in >>>> most situations but not all, merely adding "I " would correct the >>>> grammar. >>> >>> People are bombarded by bad grammar and other barbarisms constantly. >>> When did "gift" become a verb? And the people who produce television >>> commercials don't know (or don't care) the difference between "every >>> day" and "everyday" (and television shows are "all new"). But the most >>> annoying (to me) example is "look-a-like." > >> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >> one only. > > Sure, but there are degrees of unique. No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. > Every single person is unique, every snowflake is unique, but a person > who is 8 feet tall and has purple skin with yellow dots could be > described as very unique, If you use "more different" or "more unusual" you say the same thing without bending the wrong word to your task. You can use the word anyway you like of course, but it doesn't make the word appropriate for the usage. "This is more 'one of a kind' than that" makes no conceptual sense. In common usage, and it sure has become common, "unique" has come to mean "different". Word's change, and this one is well on its way. But at this point in time it's still considered a corruption of its meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 00:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <301220130021068250%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #54035 |
Lewis: > > ...every snowflake is unique... Bzzzzzt! <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/03/scientists-discover-snowflake-ide ntical-to-one-which-fell-in-1963/>. This is not the only instance in which identical snowflakes have been observed. Given the myriad snowflakes that have fallen in the history of the Earth, and the laws of probability, it has to be that there have been uncountable identical snowflakes. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <291220132244345582%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #54037 |
In article <301220130021068250%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > Lewis: > > > ...every snowflake is unique... > > Bzzzzzt! > <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/03/scientists-discover-snowflake-ide > ntical-to-one-which-fell-in-1963/>. This is not the only instance in > which identical snowflakes have been observed. Given the myriad > snowflakes that have fallen in the history of the Earth, and the laws > of probability, it has to be that there have been uncountable identical > snowflakes. That is not a reliable source, but this one appears to be: <http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263168> 1n 1988, Nancy Knight was documenting snowflakes for the National Center for Atmospheric Research and found two identical snowflakes of the hollow column type. But Kenneth Libbrecht, Caltech physics professor and snowflake expert said they may appear alike but under the atomic level, you¹ll find them entirely different. Their water molecule numbers and layouts of the molecules will be different. (most water molecules contain an oxygen atom of Oxygen-16, but one molecule in every 500 has an Oxygen-18).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 21:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-3F567A.21493529122013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #54037 |
In article <301220130021068250%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > Lewis: > > > ...every snowflake is unique... > > Bzzzzzt! > <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/03/scientists-discover-snowflake-ide > ntical-to-one-which-fell-in-1963/>. This is not the only instance in > which identical snowflakes have been observed. Given the myriad > snowflakes that have fallen in the history of the Earth, and the laws > of probability, it has to be that there have been uncountable identical > snowflakes. Well, if you take into account the O16-O18 ratios and the fact that each snowflake is about 3mg, it all depends on how pedantic you wanna get. You never said the crystals were all unique, just the snowflake itself. Each snowflake has about 1x10e20 molecules of water (assuming 100% pure water). For each to be unique, they only need one part in 1x10e20. In terms of the crystals themselves, the same can be duplicated with identical temperature and humidity, but chemically, the article you quote didn't say they were chemically identical and at what confidence level. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JudyMoy.shtml -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 09:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <301220130926124419%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #54045 |
In article <vilain-3F567A.21493529122013@news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <301220130021068250%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> > wrote: > > > Lewis: > > > > ...every snowflake is unique... > > > > Bzzzzzt! > > <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/03/scientists-discover-snowflake-ide > > ntical-to-one-which-fell-in-1963/>. This is not the only instance in > > which identical snowflakes have been observed. Given the myriad > > snowflakes that have fallen in the history of the Earth, and the laws > > of probability, it has to be that there have been uncountable identical > > snowflakes. > > Well, if you take into account the O16-O18 ratios and the fact that each > snowflake is about 3mg, it all depends on how pedantic you wanna get. > You never said the crystals were all unique, just the snowflake itself. > > Each snowflake has about 1x10e20 molecules of water (assuming 100% pure > water). For each to be unique, they only need one part in 1x10e20. In > terms of the crystals themselves, the same can be duplicated with > identical temperature and humidity, but chemically, the article you > quote didn't say they were chemically identical and at what confidence > level. > > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JudyMoy.shtml But were they isotopically identical? Eh? Eh? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 12:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l9s9lb$plt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54035 |
On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: > >> >>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >>> one only. >> >> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. > > No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. > Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of degree. One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. If a six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the emergency room it was a very unique snowflake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013123009233017861-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #54063 |
On 2013-12-30 17:14:16 +0000, J Burns said: > On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: >> >>> >>>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >>>> one only. >>> >>> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. >> >> No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. >> > > Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of degree. > One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. If a > six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the emergency > room it was a very unique snowflake. I think a more logical descriptor under those circumstances would be "heavy". But "different" "exotic" "incomparable" and many other round words fit a round hole much better. Certainly there's no law against jamming a square word in there with some trimming and misusage, followed by additional explanation. Hardly seems worth the effort. I think you're arguing for the concept that the word can mean something that it doesn't. Sure it can--if you get your meaning across. "Red", "onion-flavored" or "wicked" would work just as well *IF* you got your meaning across.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 12:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l9sbq7$8tb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54065 |
On 12/30/13, 12:23 PM, gtr wrote: > On 2013-12-30 17:14:16 +0000, J Burns said: > >> On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >>>>> one only. >>>> >>>> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. >>> >>> No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. >>> >> >> Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of >> degree. One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. >> If a six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the >> emergency room it was a very unique snowflake. > > I think a more logical descriptor under those circumstances would be > "heavy". But "different" "exotic" "incomparable" and many other round > words fit a round hole much better. Certainly there's no law against > jamming a square word in there with some trimming and misusage, followed > by additional explanation. Hardly seems worth the effort. > > I think you're arguing for the concept that the word can mean something > that it doesn't. Sure it can--if you get your meaning across. "Red", > "onion-flavored" or "wicked" would work just as well *IF* you got your > meaning across. > > Which word do you mean: "very" or "unique?" If I called the snowflake heavy, different, exotic, or incomparable, I'd still say "very." "Truly" is a common, basic meaning of "very." It has meant that since the mid-13th Century. The first known use of the word to mean "extremely" occurred two centuries later. I find it annoying when people say, "extremely unique!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 16:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013123016113744868-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #54069 |
On 2013-12-30 17:51:02 +0000, J Burns said: > On 12/30/13, 12:23 PM, gtr wrote: >> On 2013-12-30 17:14:16 +0000, J Burns said: >> >>> On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >>>>>> one only. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. >>>> >>>> No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of >>> degree. One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. >>> If a six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the >>> emergency room it was a very unique snowflake. >> >> I think a more logical descriptor under those circumstances would be >> "heavy". But "different" "exotic" "incomparable" and many other round >> words fit a round hole much better. Certainly there's no law against >> jamming a square word in there with some trimming and misusage, followed >> by additional explanation. Hardly seems worth the effort. >> >> I think you're arguing for the concept that the word can mean something >> that it doesn't. Sure it can--if you get your meaning across. "Red", >> "onion-flavored" or "wicked" would work just as well *IF* you got your >> meaning across. >> >> > Which word do you mean: "very" or "unique?" Unique, of course. > If I called the snowflake heavy, different, exotic, or incomparable, > I'd still say "very." "Truly" is a common, basic meaning of "very." Yes. Good. Carry on. > It has meant that since the mid-13th Century. The first known use of > the word to mean "extremely" occurred two centuries later. > > I find it annoying when people say, "extremely unique!" Right. One of the best reasons to avoid degress of uniqueness, is that at least part of tht time sone one will point out that you're using the word wrong. That in itself is a good reason to mususe it--it takes up too much time!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l9t991$qtp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54096 |
On 12/30/13, 7:11 PM, gtr wrote: > On 2013-12-30 17:51:02 +0000, J Burns said: > >> On 12/30/13, 12:23 PM, gtr wrote: >>> On 2013-12-30 17:14:16 +0000, J Burns said: >>> >>>> On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique >>>>>>> means >>>>>>> one only. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. >>>>> >>>>> No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of >>>> degree. One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. >>>> If a six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the >>>> emergency room it was a very unique snowflake. >>> >>> I think a more logical descriptor under those circumstances would be >>> "heavy". But "different" "exotic" "incomparable" and many other round >>> words fit a round hole much better. Certainly there's no law against >>> jamming a square word in there with some trimming and misusage, followed >>> by additional explanation. Hardly seems worth the effort. >>> >>> I think you're arguing for the concept that the word can mean something >>> that it doesn't. Sure it can--if you get your meaning across. "Red", >>> "onion-flavored" or "wicked" would work just as well *IF* you got your >>> meaning across. >>> >>> >> Which word do you mean: "very" or "unique?" > > Unique, of course. > >> If I called the snowflake heavy, different, exotic, or incomparable, >> I'd still say "very." "Truly" is a common, basic meaning of "very." > > Yes. Good. Carry on. > >> It has meant that since the mid-13th Century. The first known use of >> the word to mean "extremely" occurred two centuries later. >> >> I find it annoying when people say, "extremely unique!" > > Right. One of the best reasons to avoid degress of uniqueness, is that > at least part of tht time sone one will point out that you're using the > word wrong. That in itself is a good reason to mususe it--it takes up > too much time! > Should people stop talking about their very best efforts in case somebody thinks this implies other levels of bestness? Should people stop talking about their very own car in case somebody thinks this implies other degrees of possession? Using "very" to imply a degree of intensity comes form 15th Century slang. It should be outlawed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 11:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <201312301154437698-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #54063 |
On 2013-12-30 17:14:16 +0000, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> said: > On 12/30/13, 12:13 AM, gtr wrote: >> >>> >>>> Very annoying is "very unique" which is impossible since unique means >>>> one only. >>> >>> Sure, but there are degrees of unique. >> >> No there aren't, the definition of the word is quite simple. >> > > Yes, but "very" can mean "without qualification," regardless of degree. > One can say every snowflake is unique, but it's debatable. If a > six-pounder hit me on the head, I'd tell the doctor in the emergency > room it was a very unique snowflake. If a six pound snowflake hit me on the head, I would probably say, "WTF!!" -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 17:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52c1f333$0$10882$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #54083 |
On 13-12-30 14:54, Savageduck wrote: > If a six pound snowflake hit me on the head, I would probably say, "WTF!!" In Canada, we call those "snowballs". They only occur with a proper mix of the right type of snow and kids. Can be quite frequent. Although adults rarely take kindly to receiving one on the head. With regards to "unique". It all depends at what level you do the comparison. 2 pairs of underwear at the store, same model, same size, same colour would be considered identical to the shopper. But to a scientist with an electron microscope, he would see vast differences between them due one pair having more atoms than another. To someone living at the Equator, all snowflakes would be alike. The inuit in northern Canada recognize about a hundred different types of snowflakes. (depends on conditions in cloud, between cloud and ground and at ground).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 22:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <301220132241236919%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #54089 |
In article <52c1f333$0$10882$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-12-30 14:54, Savageduck wrote: > > > If a six pound snowflake hit me on the head, I would probably say, "WTF!!" > > > In Canada, we call those "snowballs". They only occur with a proper mix > of the right type of snow and kids. Can be quite frequent. Although > adults rarely take kindly to receiving one on the head. Have to be a fairly large snowball to contain a child, I'd have thought. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 18:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52c1fd9e$0$22400$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #54090 |
On 13-12-30 17:41, Tim Streater wrote: > Have to be a fairly large snowball to contain a child, I'd have thought. No ! No ! No ! It is the combination of kids with right type of snow that causes the formation of snowballs :-) The kids are the ones who create them :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web