Warp wrote:

>   As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with *this* thread in
> particular. It's just that your entire posting history may reveal a
> certain trend.

So why am I getting flamed for posting this?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:35:11 -0500, Mike Raiford
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Wasn't meaning to be harsh ... it's just that ... well ... hmmm.

I didn't think you were but I thing it sounded a bit heartfelt :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> In this particular case, I was merely curios about the two items in 
>> question. I wasn't actually expecting to get quite this many replies...
> 
>   I wasn't talking about this thread in particular, but more in general.

OK. Well in this particular case, I was merely curios.

>> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a 
>> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called. 
>> [Altough that was actually be pretty damn neat.]
> 
>   I would say to that: Learn to use google.
> 
>   If you are, for example, looking for the name of something which people
> wear on their head, try googling for something like "headgear". The first
> hit was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headgear
>   Browsing the list of headgear in that page, the most promising one seems
> to be "hair covers", which includes "kerchief", which is probably what you
> were looking for.

OK, that's pretty impressive. I'm really quite surprised that actually 
worked...

>   I know it's "easier" to just ask in a forum, and at the same time you
> get to "communicate" with people, and asking a few times is just ok.
> It's just that if you ask too many (usually simple) questions too often
> you'll start giving a negative impression of yourself.

I guess so. Personally I think I've toned that down recently, but this 
isn't yet "registering" in the general consciousness of this forum.

Or maybe I'm just deluding myself? You never can quite be sure...

>   You may argue that it was a completely valid and simple question,
> but arguing that is missing the point. I'm not commenting on this question
> in particular.

OK, fair enough.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:25:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> I just figured a human being somewhere would probably know the answer to
> this one easily, and wouldn't mind answering my question.

FWIW, that's how I find out the names of things I don't know the names 
of....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with *this* thread in
> > particular. It's just that your entire posting history may reveal a
> > certain trend.

> So why am I getting flamed for posting this?

  You are not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I guess so. Personally I think I've toned that down recently, but this 
> isn't yet "registering" in the general consciousness of this forum.

  People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Wasn't meaning to be harsh ... it's just that ... well ... hmmm.

  ... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
  

did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
>> wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What 
the
>> heck do you *call* that?
>
> That could be a "choker"

Seconded

>> Similarly, check out
>>
>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>>
>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>
> I would call it a headscarf but it is a cartoon and does not need to
> follow the laws of physics :)

Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc 
go  

for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case 
of  

two languages forever separate?

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
>>> wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What the
>>> heck do you *call* that?
>>
>> That could be a "choker"
> 
> Seconded
> 
>>> Similarly, check out
>>>
>>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>>>
>>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>>
>> I would call it a headscarf but it is a cartoon and does not need to
>> follow the laws of physics :)
> 
> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
> go for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another
> case of two languages forever separate?
> 
I'm always amused by the piture conjured up by the (american) words "He
was formally dressed in vest and suspenders" :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of 
>>> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
>>
>>   I don't think he was insinuating that. I believe he was not really
>> talking about *this* thread in particular, but about your posting
>> history in general, and that it was more a rhetorical question.
> 
> I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a little 
> uncalled for to me.

FWIW, I thought it read as a bit condescending also. Maybe "what *are* 
you interested in?" would have been a better way to phrase it than 
"don't you know *anything*?"  :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message