 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2013 06:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
>> The copy was also littered with
>> sentences that ended with prepositions.
>
> Why is that bad?
I think the other Jim covered it quite well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
bingo!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
>
> bingo!!!!
Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was
good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2013 08:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
>>
>> bingo!!!!
>
> Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was
> good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)
>
> Jim
>
LOL ... yes I could have easily gotten off on a rant as well, but I'm
burnt on the subject. Besides ... you were making my point, so thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:55:08 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 08:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
>>>
>>> bingo!!!!
>>
>> Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was
>> good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> LOL ... yes I could have easily gotten off on a rant as well, but I'm
> burnt on the subject. Besides ... you were making my point, so thanks.
Everybody wins. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Some people write "your" when they really mean "you're". This mistake is
>> kind of understandable.
>
> Not really. If you know that "you're" is a contraction of "you are",
> it's very easy to see when it's being misused:
For me at least when I'm typing quickly I sometimes type words that
sound the same or similar to what I'm meant to be typing. Mostly I catch
these during a quick re-read but sometimes they slip through. As well as
the obvious homophones I've put "to" instead of "do", "works" instead of
"words" and things like that. It's not that I don't know the correct
word, just that I typed it wrong. (LOL even then I had to correct "no"
to "not" before hitting send...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/06/2013 5:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:17:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.
>
> That's true enough. The first time I heard it, I had no idea what it
> meant - but most Americans wouldn't bother to look it up or ask,
> either. :)
>
> Jim
>
IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client
(customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored
to their individual and exacting requirements. As opposed to something
out of the box or off the shelf, customised to fulfil their requirements.
It harks back to the days, as you will all have read, of “gentlemen’s
clothing”. When the only choices in “bought” clothing was ready made,
handmade (modified readymade) and bespoke. Until recently it was only
used by the chinless wonder type.
On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it
albeit self-consciously.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-06-06 13:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 06/06/2013 02:17 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.
>
> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their", and "pacific" instead of
> "specific".
There/their/they're is a really common mistake made by people who don't
pay attention to what they write. (cf. "could of", "should of", "would of")
For the latter, I blame Word's red squiggly lines. The person writing
the CV probably wrote "pecific" (touch-typists will usually write the s
with their left hand ring finger, which is one of the weakest fingers)
and Word's autocorrect thinks that "pacific" is a closer match than
"specific".
Disclaimer: I tested with Office 2003, may be different in newer releases.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2013 2:08 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Disclaimer: I tested with Office 2003, may be different in newer releases.
In word 2010 "specific" is second choice in the list of suggestions. But
then, I've found that Word's spell checker is very poor for guessing
what you meant. I generally copy my misspelt words into Google to get a
better guess.
Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2013 09:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client
> (customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored
> to their individual and exacting requirements.
Indeed. I'm not debating that it's a fairly empty term. I was merely
pointing out the way it's spelt. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
