 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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.
IBM has a system like that, tho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.
"If you think people don't remember what you say, try telling the same
joke you told last month."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> That is exactly what is behind all the vitriol that is spilled on the web
> between idiot-n00bs and unhelpful-knowitall jerks.
FWIW, it's often a good idea to phrase the question as "I can't find it
in the manual. Where's the right thing to read to find it?" :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
