C
Charles Kenyon
I think a point well made in this thread is that the grammar checker can
easily make poor writing worse.
easily make poor writing worse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
"that this sentence to be wrong" is not correct under any circumstances,
indicative or subjunctive. A clause introduced with "that" cannot use an
infinitive form of the verb.
indicative or subjunctive. A clause introduced with "that" cannot use an
infinitive form of the verb.
D
don groves
Mike Lyle at said:Oh dear! I suppose that means Bill Gates will never read my send-up
after all.
Shirley, you don't expect a busy fellow like Billy G. to scroll
all the way down to the bottom of a post?
M
Mike Lyle
don said:Shirley, you don't expect a busy fellow like Billy G. to scroll
all the way down to the bottom of a post?
I should have thought of that, shouldn't I? Oh well, it can wait till
next time I see him dahn The Vic. The lads don't 'alf give Bill stick
dahn there, I can tell you! "Oi, Wiww!" they cry, "Wossis shtupid
'that' referrin ter persons, 'en? Yer effin paper-clip teww ye te do
that, then? You drinkin shorts agen, 'en? Rotcher effin liver, an
proper shafts yer prose sty-ew, 'at crap does! Ere, avva pint o
Londom Pride: 's a _man's_ drink!"
Mike.
D
don groves
Mike Lyle at said:I should have thought of that, shouldn't I? Oh well, it can wait till
next time I see him dahn The Vic. The lads don't 'alf give Bill stick
dahn there, I can tell you! "Oi, Wiww!" they cry, "Wossis shtupid
'that' referrin ter persons, 'en? Yer effin paper-clip teww ye te do
that, then? You drinkin shorts agen, 'en? Rotcher effin liver, an
proper shafts yer prose sty-ew, 'at crap does! Ere, avva pint o
Londom Pride: 's a _man's_ drink!"
It took a while but I actually can read that. 'elped a bit 'avin
'erd 'enry 'iggins 'n loverly Liza now 'n 'en.
Love the paper clip bit.
M
Martin Ambuhl
Suzanne said:I note that you have snipped the text in question
Bullshit. Your using a sig marker at the end of your top-posted message
leads non-braindead newsreaders to remove everything after it.
so that no one can make
anything out of this post.
If you must top-post, don't use a sig marker.
I could provide my credentials and a detailed
explanation of the grammar involved,
No, you couldn't because contrary to your claim there is nothing wrong
with my "If I were to type this sentence into Word 2003, and dividend
taxes were gone, Word would tell me that this sentence to be wrong."
You have no argument to make, so don't hide behind the bogus ...
but I prefer to spend my time helping
users of Microsoft Word than to wade back through the NG to find your
previous post.
One post back, which is included in your very own sig. God, you're a twit.
M
Martin Ambuhl
Suzanne said:I note that you have snipped the text in question so that no one can make
anything out of this post. I could provide my credentials and a detailed
explanation of the grammar involved, but I prefer to spend my time helping
users of Microsoft Word than to wade back through the NG to find your
previous post.
I did not snip anything. Your poor posting habits did.
I apologize for your top-posting with a sig divider above the message
you are quoting. I will try not to let you do it again. However, you
are correct about my sentence. Retaining 'that' before 'to be wrong' is
clearly an error.
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
"Word would tell me this sentence to be wrong" would still be incorrect.
I will not apologize for the inadequacies of your newsreader. In the NG to
which you have crossposted, the overwhelming number of posters who do not
post through a Web portal use OE. They also top-post. In any case, I would
say that this discussion has considerably digressed from the subject of
application errors in Word, the subject of the NG to which you cross-posted.
The "error" addressed in the original post was not in any case the sort of
"error" addressed by this NG but rather a failing or deficiency of Word.
When you find that Word crashes every time you open it, then perhaps you
will be happy to come back here and be directed to
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/AppErrors/ProbsOpeningWord.htm
I will not apologize for the inadequacies of your newsreader. In the NG to
which you have crossposted, the overwhelming number of posters who do not
post through a Web portal use OE. They also top-post. In any case, I would
say that this discussion has considerably digressed from the subject of
application errors in Word, the subject of the NG to which you cross-posted.
The "error" addressed in the original post was not in any case the sort of
"error" addressed by this NG but rather a failing or deficiency of Word.
When you find that Word crashes every time you open it, then perhaps you
will be happy to come back here and be directed to
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/AppErrors/ProbsOpeningWord.htm
M
Mark Barratt
Suzanne said:I will not apologize for the inadequacies of your newsreader.
Now there's a take on the matter I've never considered. Many
newsreaders recognise the "signature separator" (two hyphens
followed by a space), and omit what follows it when quoting for
replies. At one time, it was not even possible to generate such a
thing with OE, since it would strip the space on sending. As far
as I know, OE still ignores the sig separator. Whilst I could
sympathise with the viewpoint that this is not a serious
shortcoming of OE, I've never before seen it presented as an
inadequacy of the other newsreaders, and I'm grateful to you for
this insight.
Presumably, a word-processing program which does not crash
regularly is also, in your view, inadequate?
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
I've never been privileged to own a word processing program that crashed
regularly, and indeed the one I use has many inadequacies, which I work
daily to help users overcome. I also communicate regularly with the
program's developers about these inadequacies with a view to improving the
product.
regularly, and indeed the one I use has many inadequacies, which I work
daily to help users overcome. I also communicate regularly with the
program's developers about these inadequacies with a view to improving the
product.
S
Steve Hayes
I note that you have snipped the text in question so that no one can make
anything out of this post. I could provide my credentials and a detailed
explanation of the grammar involved, but I prefer to spend my time helping
users of Microsoft Word than to wade back through the NG to find your
previous post.
Something you wouldn't have to do if you didn't post upside down in the first
place.
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
I don't see how changing the order of the posting would make any difference
when context is snipped. I have my newsreader set to Hide Read Messages, so
when a message does not contain the entire thread, it is (usually) more
trouble than it is worth to mark the current message as unread, display all
messages, find the unread one, and then backtrack up the thread.
Note, too, that I did not start this thread and cross-post it to
microsoft.public.word.application.errors (where a different culture
prevails). I have refrained from trimming alt.usage.english only because it
is my belief that that is the NG the OP is reading. OTOH, this thread has so
far diverged from the original subject that I daresay the OP has long since
stopped reading it.
when context is snipped. I have my newsreader set to Hide Read Messages, so
when a message does not contain the entire thread, it is (usually) more
trouble than it is worth to mark the current message as unread, display all
messages, find the unread one, and then backtrack up the thread.
Note, too, that I did not start this thread and cross-post it to
microsoft.public.word.application.errors (where a different culture
prevails). I have refrained from trimming alt.usage.english only because it
is my belief that that is the NG the OP is reading. OTOH, this thread has so
far diverged from the original subject that I daresay the OP has long since
stopped reading it.
ukSteve Hayes said:Something you wouldn't have to do if you didn't post upside down in the first
place.
S
Skitt
Martin said:Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
I did not snip anything. Your poor posting habits did.
I apologize for your top-posting with a sig divider above the message
you are quoting. I will try not to let you do it again. However, you
are correct about my sentence. Retaining 'that' before 'to be wrong'
is clearly an error.
While I dislike top-posting, I must note that OE (run with QuoteFix, of
course) deletes Suzanne's "in the middle" signature block without affecting
the material that follows. QuoteFix helps OE do what should be done, but
what OE hasn't learned to do yet. I wouldn't use OE without QF.
M
Mike Lyle
Suzanne said:I don't see how changing the order of the posting would make any
difference when context is snipped.
Because readers in a particular group may expect to see a logical
flow; and downwards is the conventional direction of flow in reading
material. Imagine a book laid out on top-posting principles. Then if
you can, when you've got used to that, imagine a book laid out on a
random mixture of top-posting and bottom-posting principles. In the
more sophisticated groups, such as AUE, where complexity of argument
is taken for granted, posters take a bit of trouble to snip with
discretion -- I for one don't always get it right, but it usually
works out on the night. It goes to blazes if somebody snips the lot;
and it gets tedious if they don't snip at all.
(I don't here refer to the dimmer newsgroups, which seem to survive
mainly because their posters only want to see their name in lights,
and don't care too much what other people have to say anyhow.)
A group devoted to quick technical question-and-answer, where the
subject line quite often says most of what has to be said about the
topic and one to three answers are enough, may well find that
top-posting works best. I do that with email. But email isn't a
complex discussion lasting several days or weeks among fifty people.
[...]I have my newsreader set to Hide
Read Messages, so when a message does not contain the entire thread,
it is (usually) more trouble than it is worth to mark the current
message as unread, display all messages, find the unread one, and
then backtrack up the thread.
Which is why some of us don't do it. It's impossible to carry on a
proper discussion if the previous messages are hidden. "More trouble
than it's worth" means you aren't serious about what other people
have said on the subject. Nothing wrong with that; but it isn't adult
discussion.
Mike.
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Again, the differences come down to differences in the culture and purpose
of the two NGs. Civilized gentlemanly discussion is not the purpose of the
microsoft.public.word.* NGs. Users come here with questions. I and other
MVPs and quite a few other "regulars" post answers. The preponderance of
threads have one initial post, a flurry of immediate replies, and no further
activity except the occasional thank-you or "it worked!" post. I post in
dozens of threads every day (18,816 in 2003; 11,697 so far in 2004), most of
them of depressing similarity. Occasionally one thread will go on for quite
a long time (in Internet time, this means maybe two or three days), and in
such cases it is convenient to be able to backtrack through the history of
the thread by looking at a single post. Because msnews retains posts for a
relatively long time, there can be huge numbers of "current" threads in
high-traffic NGs (currently 6,782 messages in m.p.word.docmanagement);
displaying all of them makes reading very cumbersome.
I am perfectly willing to accept that a different culture prevails in
alt.usage.english, but I will reiterate that I did not initiate this thread.
The person who did is the one who barged into a "foreign" NG and unknowingly
entered a culture with different mores.
of the two NGs. Civilized gentlemanly discussion is not the purpose of the
microsoft.public.word.* NGs. Users come here with questions. I and other
MVPs and quite a few other "regulars" post answers. The preponderance of
threads have one initial post, a flurry of immediate replies, and no further
activity except the occasional thank-you or "it worked!" post. I post in
dozens of threads every day (18,816 in 2003; 11,697 so far in 2004), most of
them of depressing similarity. Occasionally one thread will go on for quite
a long time (in Internet time, this means maybe two or three days), and in
such cases it is convenient to be able to backtrack through the history of
the thread by looking at a single post. Because msnews retains posts for a
relatively long time, there can be huge numbers of "current" threads in
high-traffic NGs (currently 6,782 messages in m.p.word.docmanagement);
displaying all of them makes reading very cumbersome.
I am perfectly willing to accept that a different culture prevails in
alt.usage.english, but I will reiterate that I did not initiate this thread.
The person who did is the one who barged into a "foreign" NG and unknowingly
entered a culture with different mores.
Mike Lyle said:Suzanne said:I don't see how changing the order of the posting would make any
difference when context is snipped.
Because readers in a particular group may expect to see a logical
flow; and downwards is the conventional direction of flow in reading
material. Imagine a book laid out on top-posting principles. Then if
you can, when you've got used to that, imagine a book laid out on a
random mixture of top-posting and bottom-posting principles. In the
more sophisticated groups, such as AUE, where complexity of argument
is taken for granted, posters take a bit of trouble to snip with
discretion -- I for one don't always get it right, but it usually
works out on the night. It goes to blazes if somebody snips the lot;
and it gets tedious if they don't snip at all.
(I don't here refer to the dimmer newsgroups, which seem to survive
mainly because their posters only want to see their name in lights,
and don't care too much what other people have to say anyhow.)
A group devoted to quick technical question-and-answer, where the
subject line quite often says most of what has to be said about the
topic and one to three answers are enough, may well find that
top-posting works best. I do that with email. But email isn't a
complex discussion lasting several days or weeks among fifty people.
[...]I have my newsreader set to Hide
Read Messages, so when a message does not contain the entire thread,
it is (usually) more trouble than it is worth to mark the current
message as unread, display all messages, find the unread one, and
then backtrack up the thread.
Which is why some of us don't do it. It's impossible to carry on a
proper discussion if the previous messages are hidden. "More trouble
than it's worth" means you aren't serious about what other people
have said on the subject. Nothing wrong with that; but it isn't adult
discussion.
Mike.
D
Dylan Nicholson
Hagrinas Mivali said:I did a search on the archives of alt.usage.english. I found a post that
said that this problem existed back in Word 97.
FWIW, doesn't happen in 2000.
P
Peter Moylan
Skitt hayshed:
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)
While I dislike top-posting, I must note that OE (run with QuoteFix, of
course) deletes Suzanne's "in the middle" signature block without affecting
the material that follows. QuoteFix helps OE do what should be done, but
what OE hasn't learned to do yet. I wouldn't use OE without QF.
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)
P
Peter Moylan
A. Top posting.
Q. What's the most irritating thing about Usenet?
Q. What's the most irritating thing about Usenet?
D
Don Aitken
A. Top posting.
Q. What's the most irritating thing about Usenet?
No, that's about the fourth or fifth most irritating. It comes a long
way behind displaying your own superiority by sneering at other
people's posting habits in places where they are well-accepted, and,
indeed, usual. If you, and the other tedious netcops, *really* don't
like top-posting, you could try not cross-posting to groups where it
goes on.
I have been amazed at Suzanne's patience. I would have told you all to
**** off.
J
John Dunlop
Peter Moylan wrote:
[ ... ]
In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?
[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)
In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.