Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
> I had to copy his message to a text editor and do s/u/you/ and other
> replacements...
> 

U cnt do tht. U need 2 do s/\ u\ /\ you\ /g, since othr words can have u
 in the mddle of thm.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
> U cnt do tht. U need 2 do s/\ u\ /\ you\ /g, since othr words can have u
>  in the mddle of thm.

I'll add a disclaimer here. I haven't read the whole thread, but I
personally didn't see Saul's text unreadable.

OTOH, I don't see how it could be faster readable, while the length of
the word practically effects only long and hard words - practically (at
least for me) it takes the same time to read u or you in the middle of
text - I just understand you faster. Today it's not a big issue (at
least for me), but I can imagine back when sending a kilobyte took over
3 seconds and storage really costed some money saving bits and bytes was
a bigger issue. Y2k -problem proved it (if it hadn't been a big issue,
there wouldn't have been such a problem).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

OK, I'm answering everyone in this post:
I may sound juvenile because I wrote a lot in a juvenile game forum and 
Stephen what I was quoting was from the article u offered a link to, so 
I don't see why it sounded juvenile. I had no problem at all on that 
forum trying to understand the posts since is only a simple case on word 
abbreviations by replacing them for their phonetics proxys.

Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of 
abbreviations, I actually don't see the logic of the "insult". Was my 
post saying: you are dumb because you who have fought dyslexia can't 
read it? If so, I never even got close to mention dyslexia people, I 
only meant that some people here do intellectual achievements by 
publishing very mind challenging posts to show off themselves as a true 
purpose so I found ridiculous that people here complained about a simple 
mental replacement. Anyway, I don't meant that the people that 
complaining about it is the same that made those show offs, I think was 
a mistake on my part to assume that everyone here would be able to 
understand me, since I assume smart people don't have a problem with 
this kind Internet slang, let alone knowing some people here had a won 
battle against dyslexia. I apology for the mistake.

Regards.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> To a native English speaker it makes you sound juvenile or ignorant. Also other
> people do not read your text faster.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7775013.stm
> Hrd 2 rd

Yep. I generally read people who use those obnoxious 1-2 letter 
abbreviations as being 12-14 .. Which is rather unsettling when it's 
someone you know in real life, and they type like a scriddie ...
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4941782f@news.povray.org...
> FWIW, I'm more tolerant to some piracy than to people using "u" and "ppl"
> and "coz" repeatedly >.<
>

 Why? It's fine for me. As a non english speaker, Saul has found a way that 
is comfortable for him. Now, take my son, who is an english speaker and read 
the rubbish that he types into his phone -  if you could, that is.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> the rubbish that he types into his phone

Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into a 
mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.

(On the other hand, I figure if you need more than two lines, dial the other 
person's phone number and talk to them. ;-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
> List amongst other things.

Past Participle. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:42:02 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> St. wrote:
>> the rubbish that he types into his phone
> 
> Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into
> a mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.
> 
> (On the other hand, I figure if you need more than two lines, dial the
> other person's phone number and talk to them. ;-)

Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the 
character", IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
> character", IIRC.

Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.

Plus, of course, the fact that the less you have to type the better... At
least if you don't have predictive text (T9 and friends).

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Dec-08 2:35, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> OK, I'm answering everyone in this post:
> I may sound juvenile because I wrote a lot in a juvenile game forum and 
> Stephen what I was quoting was from the article u offered a link to, so 
> I don't see why it sounded juvenile. I had no problem at all on that 
> forum trying to understand the posts since is only a simple case on word 
> abbreviations by replacing them for their phonetics proxys.
> 
> Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of 
> abbreviations, I actually don't see the logic of the "insult". Was my 
> post saying: you are dumb because you who have fought dyslexia can't 
> read it? If so, I never even got close to mention dyslexia people, I 
> only meant that some people here do intellectual achievements by 
> publishing very mind challenging posts to show off themselves as a true 
> purpose so I found ridiculous that people here complained about a simple 
> mental replacement. Anyway, I don't meant that the people that 
> complaining about it is the same that made those show offs, I think was 
> a mistake on my part to assume that everyone here would be able to 
> understand me, since I assume smart people don't have a problem with 
> this kind Internet slang, let alone knowing some people here had a won 
> battle against dyslexia. I apology for the mistake.
> 

I think there is something funny in this group, and you are not the 
first to experience it in this way. As you know news.povray.org is 
deliberately not part of the standard newsgroup system. Perhaps it is 
more than just a physical disconnection. I think on average the people 
here are somewhat older and although very involved in computers, they 
are not the rather empty showing off 'skills' type. Some of us even 
think before writing (not me of course).
You might also have noticed the continued annoyance with the lack of 
spell checking of our mascot. I think that in general you could say that 
many here appreciate it if you write good English or at least try to. If 
you are not a native speaker, use that to your advantage. Note that we 
are a friendly bunch of guys, and the occasional lady, but don't take us 
to seriously, we tend to like running gags. If you don't stop being 
taken by surprise with what goes on here, u and ur u may become one of 
those.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>> character", IIRC.
> 
> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.

Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some 
plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So 
conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.

> Plus, of course, the fact that the less you have to type the better...
> At least if you don't have predictive text (T9 and friends).

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of
> abbreviations,

I don't think that it's that anybody was insulted, Saul, I think that 
it's that it's not part of the cultural norm of these newsgroups.

When communicating, it's important to take your audience into 
consideration - whether spoken, written, or whatever.

Online communities develop their own personalities and cultural norms.  
The use of SMS text abbreviations is pervasive through some, and not in 
others.

This is one of the ones where it isn't as pervasive.  Sure, some things 
(like LOL) find their way into it.  But when you are trying to get a 
point across or discuss something, it's always best to take the listener/
reader into consideration.

I mean, I cood right yousing wired wurdz or 3v3n 1337-5p33k two tri- too 
luk kewl.  Buht t3ll m3 h0w d1ff1cu1t eye ahm 2 uhndrstahnd.

When you're reading along full tilt and then you have to stop to think 
about what's been written, the end result often is that you stop reading 
and go onto the next message.

Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and 
the one before it at the same speed.  I *wrote* it, and the first one 
takes me longer, even though it's shorter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>> character", IIRC.
>> 
>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
> 
> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
> plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So
> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.

Yes, definitely.

I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Dec-08 22:47, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Well, and the "lingo" evolved because the billing used to be "by the
>>>> character", IIRC.
>>> Not really. It's because SMS messages are limited to 160 characters.
>> Well, yeah, but each message used to be (and in some places/on some
>> plans, still is) billed by the message.  That's what I was thinking.  So
>> conserving space was/is an important consideration in that venue.
> 
> Yes, definitely.
> 
> I mean it was never charged per character. It was and is charged per
> message, but their length is ridiculously limited :)
> 
IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched 
packets this was what could fit in one packet. Added as a funny extra in 
the protocol, never intended to be really used. D*mned internet, I can't 
find that story, so it is probably not true :( One used to be able to 
say such things and if they were not true you could at least have 
started a meme.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched 
> packets this was what could fit in one packet.

Yes. It was intended for use by people actually installing the network. Then 
they figured out they could charge five dollars a kilobyte or something.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> IIRC the length was such that when the telephone switched to switched
>> packets this was what could fit in one packet.
> 
> Yes. It was intended for use by people actually installing the network.
> Then they figured out they could charge five dollars a kilobyte or
> something.

And even then, it was marketed as a way for people to send a SMS home
saying "I'm stuck in traffic". Not for people to send a hundred messages
back and forth, making a long conversation they could have in a tenth of
the time by *talking* on the damn phone. But as soon as cellphone companies
noticed it was used for the latter... Well, the more money the better!

All the use I give to my cellphone is about one SMS a day. "Mom, I arrived"
basically :)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and 
> the one before it at the same speed.  I *wrote* it, and the first one 
> takes me longer, even though it's shorter.

Actually my reading flowed through till the part of 'kewl' and 'eye ahm' 
since as I mentioned I read/wrote posts in this juvenile game forum, so 
was almost no problem, so on that game forum I'd add those words to the 
'vocabulary' and use them when necessary, but I see YOUR :) point now 
and I understand better this community so is not only fair for YOU :) 
all but also convenient since writing good English leaves no doubt what 
one is trying to say is a harmonious common ground of understanding, 
I'll try to write to YOU :) in the best English I know plus Mozilla 
SeaMonkey's English spell check corrections :)

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

Y dN't u gUyS jS dR0piT?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:494696ec@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> the rubbish that he types into his phone
>
> Almost understandable, given you're typing with a 10-key interface into a 
> mechanism that gives you two lines of text per message.

  But when I looked at a practice application form he did when he was in 
school, he penned 'u' instead of 'you'.


     ~Steve~


>
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
>   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:31:46 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> but I see YOUR  point now and
> I understand better this community so is not only fair for YOU  all but
> also convenient since writing good English leaves no doubt what one is
> trying to say is a harmonious common ground of understanding, I'll try
> to write to YOU  in the best English I know plus Mozilla SeaMonkey's
> English spell check corrections

I thank you for this. :-)

It's easy enough for me (can't speak for others) to deal with odd 
sentence construction from those who don't speak English natively - I'm 
extremely used to it myself because of experiences in other forums/
newsgroups.

And I'm certain that you have a far better command of English than I have 
of your native language - so my hat's off to you for your adeptness at 
communicating in a foreign language.  I took Spanish myself in high 
school, but I've forgotten most of it.  I know about 6 words in Japanese 
and Russian (and not the usual ones at that).  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:39:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Y dN't u gUyS jS dR0piT?

It'd land on my foot, and that hurts like a sonofa...... ;-)


Jim

Post a reply to this message

Last post I promise:

Thank you for the complements :)

Well here in Bolivia, because English is the International language is 
taught as a second language, on some schools better than others and some 
not at all, plus also in the University you get technical English for 
your career. Also I like technology and computer so I get to read about 
it on the Internet and is mostly in English which is good for me to 
practice it and a language I can read fairly good.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

>OK, I'm answering everyone in this post:
>I may sound juvenile because I wrote a lot in a juvenile game forum and 
>Stephen what I was quoting was from the article u offered a link to, so 
>I don't see why it sounded juvenile. 

I did not realise it was a quote. I thought that it was your own words, so that
is why I thought that it was a juvenile retort. 
As to the quote, I hardly think that someone who is described as a "slang
lexicographer" is unbiased. :)  <--? (SMS icon)
There is a whole debate going on (in the UK, at least) about what is acceptable
in written English not including the acceptability of non British English.



>Also I can't believe somebody actually got insulted by this type of 
>abbreviations, I actually don't see the logic of the "insult". 

I did not feel insulted I did not like the implications of what I obviously
misread when you said "but here most ppl presume of making intellectual
milestones writing or discovering intellectual interesting stuff and mostly as a
show-off of their mental capacity". To me it read as if you were complaining
that some people were using big words to show off. But that is a reason to write
properly so that what you want to say is understood the way that you want it to
be. IMO

>Was my 
>post saying: you are dumb because you who have fought dyslexia can't 
>read it? If so, I never even got close to mention dyslexia people, 

No it wasn't. I just take a lot of care that when I post I generally check the
context and spelling. I envy people who can write directly without needing to
check first.

>since I assume smart people don't have a problem with 
>this kind Internet slang, let alone knowing some people here had a won 
>battle against dyslexia. I apology for the mistake.

Apology accepted and lets not make too much of it, please.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:19:03 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

>Last post I promise:
>
>Thank you for the complements :)
>

I concur with Jim, your language skills are better than mine and I salute you
for them. If you hang around here you might even pick up some Scots, ye ken ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15 Dec 2008 14:24:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
>> List amongst other things.
>
>Past Participle. :-)
>

That 2
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:16:07 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 14-Dec-08 18:27, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 
>> Now as someone who has battled with dyslexia I find it insulting to be spoken to
>> like that. Also on an international newsgroup it is only polite to write in a
>> way that you can be understood.
>> 
>
>I can see your point, but the group is not only international, it is 
>also intercultural. You'd be amazed what is considered normal spelling 
>in some subcultures. Indeed we have had worse examples of 1337 here. If 
>I were you I would not bother too much. Kids will always want to show 
>that they are part of some interesting cultural development. I did it 
>when I was young, you probably did it too, 

Guilty as charged, my Lord.

>though in our cases it was 
>not language that was the victim. It'll rub off when they get older 
>generally (or it becomes standard spelling).

Heaven forbid the latter :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:30:48 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> To a native English speaker it makes you sound juvenile or ignorant. Also other
>> people do not read your text faster.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7775013.stm
>> Hrd 2 rd
>
>Yep. I generally read people who use those obnoxious 1-2 letter 
>abbreviations as being 12-14 .. Which is rather unsettling when it's 
>someone you know in real life, and they type like a scriddie ...

True LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:25:32 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

> Now, take my son, 

Do I hear an implied "please"?  :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:494### [at] hotmailcom...

> Note that we are a friendly bunch of guys,

   *Shoves* Andrel on the shoulder...








     ;)

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message 
news:4946f709$1@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:41 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>
>> Now, tell me you read the paragraph immediately proceeding this one and 
>> the one before it at the same speed.  I *wrote* it, and the first one 
>> takes me longer, even though it's shorter.
>
> Actually my reading flowed through till the part of 'kewl' and 'eye ahm' 
> since as I mentioned I read/wrote posts in this juvenile game forum, so 
> was almost no problem, so on that game forum I'd add those words to the 
> 'vocabulary' and use them when necessary, but I see YOUR :) point now and 
> I understand better this community so is not only fair for YOU :) all but 
> also convenient since writing good English leaves no doubt what one is 
> trying to say is a harmonious common ground of understanding, I'll try to 
> write to YOU :) in the best English I know plus Mozilla SeaMonkey's 
> English spell check corrections :)
>

   They've been ganging up on you Saul, but you gave some of them a black 
eye. That's the spirit!  ;)

    ~Steve~




> Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message 
news:i9ofk4972krbrd4ec7p09ol633j6e94571@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:25:32 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>> Now, take my son,
>
> Do I hear an implied "please"?  :-)

    LOL, yes! :o)

    Oh. Wait. Someone's already done that... :o/

     ~Steve~



> -- 
>
> Regards
>     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16-Dec-08 18:05, Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:19:03 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> 
>> Last post I promise:
>>
>> Thank you for the complements :)
>>
> 
> I concur with Jim, your language skills are better than mine and I salute you
> for them. If you hang around here you might even pick up some Scots, ye ken ;)

Can I recommend the 'wee free man' and other Tiffany Aching stories by 
Pratchett as another good source of (supposedly) scots?

Post a reply to this message

On 16-Dec-08 18:09, Stephen wrote:

>> though in our cases it was 
>> not language that was the victim. It'll rub off when they get older 
>> generally (or it becomes standard spelling).
> 
> Heaven forbid the latter :)
I am afraid that some of the things that were invented when I was young 
to annoy the parents are indeed now standard spelling.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:39:58 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 16-Dec-08 18:05, Stephen wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:19:03 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> 
>>> Last post I promise:
>>>
>>> Thank you for the complements :)
>>>
>> 
>> I concur with Jim, your language skills are better than mine and I salute you
>> for them. If you hang around here you might even pick up some Scots, ye ken ;)
>
>Can I recommend the 'wee free man' and other Tiffany Aching stories by 
>Pratchett as another good source of (supposedly) scots?

Aye! Ye can.

...

Ya big bampot! :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:43:04 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 16-Dec-08 18:09, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> though in our cases it was 
>>> not language that was the victim. It'll rub off when they get older 
>>> generally (or it becomes standard spelling).
>> 
>> Heaven forbid the latter :)
>I am afraid that some of the things that were invented when I was young 
>to annoy the parents are indeed now standard spelling.

'Tis the way of the world/
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:06:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15 Dec 2008 14:24:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
>>> List amongst other things.
>>
>>Past Participle. :-)
>>
>>
> That 2

Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:05:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>  If you hang around here you might even pick up some Scots,
> ye ken

Hehehe, I've been thinking of learning Japanese myself - it helps that my 
sister-in-law doesn't speak much English at all, makes it easier to 
communicate with her and her parents.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:00:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> No it wasn't. I just take a lot of care that when I post I generally
> check the context and spelling. I envy people who can write directly
> without needing to check first.

There was a huge discussion on the openSUSE forums - there's an NNTP 
gateway so people like me can read posts there, but those coming from a 
"web forum" background are used to being able to edit their posts.

Those from the NNTP side were saying "well, why didn't you read what you 
wrote before you posted?", and the web forum side was saying "what, you 
never make a mistake?".

It's an interesting "clash" of styles.  Going in and editing an NNTP post 
is generally not possible the way the servers are implemented (would 
require modification of INN or Twister) and change propagation would be 
nuts.

It's funny to me that in many web forums, people want to be able to edit 
their posts to correct them or make them look better, and then resort to 
writing in a shorthand that doesn't make sense when read on a 
professional level, and they don't want to reply to themselves in the 
thread to post a clarification, which from an NNTP perspective is second 
nature.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16 Dec 2008 21:31:04 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:06:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 15 Dec 2008 14:24:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
>>>> List amongst other things.
>>>
>>>Past Participle. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> That 2
>
>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16 Dec 2008 21:37:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>It's funny to me that in many web forums, people want to be able to edit 
>their posts to correct them or make them look better, and then resort to 
>writing in a shorthand that doesn't make sense when read on a 
>professional level, and they don't want to reply to themselves in the 
>thread to post a clarification, which from an NNTP perspective is second 
>nature.

Different strokes for different folks ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:24:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 16 Dec 2008 21:37:40 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>It's funny to me that in many web forums, people want to be able to edit
>>their posts to correct them or make them look better, and then resort to
>>writing in a shorthand that doesn't make sense when read on a
>>professional level, and they don't want to reply to themselves in the
>>thread to post a clarification, which from an NNTP perspective is second
>>nature.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks ;)

Well, yeah, that's kinda my point. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:26:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 16 Dec 2008 21:31:04 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:06:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Dec 2008 14:24:45 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  ppl means Private Pilot License or Preferred Parts
>>>>> List amongst other things.
>>>>
>>>>Past Participle. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That 2
>>
>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>
>>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)

Egads. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
>
>Egads. :-)

And they say we're weird :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
>>
>>Egads. :-)
> 
> And they say we're weird :)

Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
>>>
>>>Egads. :-)
>> 
>> And they say we're weird :)
>
>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>

I resemble that remark :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:39:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
>>>>
>>>>Egads. :-)
>>> 
>>> And they say we're weird :)
>>
>>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>>
>>
> I resemble that remark :)

So do I. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Dec 2008 14:24:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:39:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm  ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Egads. :-)
>>>> 
>>>> And they say we're weird :)
>>>
>>>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>>>
>>>
>> I resemble that remark :)
>
>So do I. :-)
>
>Jim

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:49:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> I resemble that remark :)
>>
>>So do I. :-)
>>
>>Jim
> 
> LOL

I'm glad you liked it. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>    They've been ganging up on you Saul, but you gave some of them a black 
> eye. That's the spirit!  ;)
> 
>     ~Steve~

Thanks Steve, actually I have enjoyed this ganging since it has bean 
full or rational thinking and heart felt too, you all in this news group 
are not only smart but also are in contact with your feelings, I found 
that a pleasant place to discus even argue anything and thank you all 
for the friendship and tolerance, I appreciate it.

Thoughts don't feel and feelings don't think, so we must find a 
equilibrium point between compassion and responsibility I think; 
responsible compassion.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:494460ff@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
> > news:49430a1f$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> >
> >>> as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
> >>> origins or beliefs
> >
> >> Yeah like u ddn't do it first.
> >
> > Difference is, I never mentioned "God" to suggest a belief in a deity on
my
> > part. Little detail, but if "v" are going to be pedantic, let's get
those
> > right.
>
> What has my belief in God anything to do with piracy, I cleared that
> already, I believe in Him but I do wrong things to survive, read the
> posts above and what about the pedantic? dude, u were saying u were
> ready to take my word on why not pirating software would lead me to
> suffering in my country and once I explained why, instead of actually
> accept my word as u wrote u would u do exactly the opposite and I'm
> pedant? hahaha.
>
> >> This proves u and and U is what matters,
> >> Fine by me.
> >
> > Ah, something we can agree on.
>
> Again, I explained I have no choice and I'm right not coz I say so, but
> coz my situation says so, but u again missed the point and come to make
> redundant assumptions, so u take the fast and easy cynic highway to
> criticize me, but I'm sure coz u r "legal" guy u will not cease to say u
> r not the closed mineded but me, the infamous pirate, is laughable to
> see how ppl that were once trying to understand u turns cynic and closed
> mineded once u justify ur point and they can't beat the logic, so
> keeping on writing to u is simply pointless, now I'm starting to notice
> ur frustration and intolerant attitude calling me pedant when wasn't me
> who broke his word about getting ready to take my word for it, dude the
> more u write the more typically intolerant ur behave/attitude it is, so
> be it; peace out.

The lighthearted remark was just to provide an easy exit for you. "U" (*)
are the one who's getting all worked up over this. Initially, I simply
commented on a humorous juxtaposition of righteausness and apologetics. Yes,
we are all creatures of conflicts, but that doesn't mean we cannot point the
paradoxes out as they surface. It's interesting, too, while not uncommon,
that you don't see the moral dilemma that emerges from combining a belief in
higher moral powers and piracy. If your belief in God doesn't have to do
anything with piracy, what does it have anything to do with any other
earthly matters, from one's sex life to daily rituals? Why should a belief
in god have to do anything with anything at all? It's not as vacuous a
question as it might first seem. You take certain things for granted, and
you have compartmentalized your thinking to cope with matters and avoid
conflicts. We all do. That's a side of humans that's interesting to me, as I
am sure to some others.

(*) I find your style of prose not quite appropriate. Excessive
abbreviations will irritate others who may wish to follow the thread. The
message you are sending here is that you do not care about all the other
readers here, so long as you save a few keystrokes and, more importantly,
expressly disrespect the person you are responding to. Unfortunately, it's
also a slippery slope. You might consciously or unconsciously believe that
using "u" instead of "you" will be disparaging towards me, but what also
happens, on an unconscious level, is that carefree grammar, punctuation,
capitalization inevitably leads content to suffer. I've yet to read a
coherent article, on the internet or elsewhere, that doesn't adhere to basic
structural rules. Take this as constructive criticism from another
non-native speaker of English.

Post a reply to this message