 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/06/2013 9:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7rings<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Today a CV landed on my boss' desk. While reading it, we came across the
>> following phrase:
>>
>> "...designing B-spoke software for there pacific needs."
>>
>> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
>> English words so badly wrong?
>>
>> Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.
>
> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside
>
No bad, init.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-6-2013 10:58, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7rings<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.
>
> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside
>
Chill, man.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:34:27 +0100, scott wrote:
>>>> >>"The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>>>> >>preposition. It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
>>> >
>>> >But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
>>> >preposition. It's because it lacks something.
>> Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced. Now you tell me how to
>> construct that sentence with the missing object*without* putting the
>> missing object ahead of the preposition. Oh, and it has to make sense,
>> too.;)
>
> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some
> part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the
> apple was beside." and that would be fine.
Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object. As I said,
*generally* when you use a preposition, the object that is related is
after the preposition, but not always. Which is why it's a "rule of
thumb" or a "guideline".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside
GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>> bedside
>
> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
Have you eaten him or something?
;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:37:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
>
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)
Guessing his current employer isn't as problematic about him posting from
work (or he doesn't have time to) as his previous employer was.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-6-2013 21:37, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
>
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)
>
Now you mention it, I also haven't seen him for a while.
--
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:05:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Now you mention it, I also haven't seen him for a while.
<rimshot>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
>> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
>> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some
>> part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the
>> apple was beside." and that would be fine.
>
> Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object.
That sounds a much better "rule of thumb".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>> U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
>
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)
>
Sudden change of jobs...
Sudden change of place of residence...
Sudden rise in monetary income...
Sound incredibly fishy.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
