Photoshopped?

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I wonder why my three week old request or clarification has been ignored.

it could be because you are best ignored.

On 11/6/2015 1:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


I wonder why my three week old request or clarification has been ignored.

it could be because you are best ignored.


It could also be your refusal to admit making yet another asinine statement.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder why my three week old request or clarification has been ignored.

it could be because you are best ignored.

It could also be your refusal to admit making yet another asinine statement.

actually, it's not wanting to bother with a lying asshole.

On 11/6/2015 2:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder why my three week old request or clarification has been ignored.

it could be because you are best ignored.

It could also be your refusal to admit making yet another asinine statement.

actually, it's not wanting to bother with a lying asshole.


Your right. I shouldn't bother with you.

--
PeterN

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Davoud:
Moving OT, and not intending to denigrate Mr. Cooper in any way,
I'm glad that Mr. Stevens brought that up. The former phrasing is
becoming more common, it seems, but it grates on me. I don't think
that the phrase "all links that are clicked are not 'linkbait'" in
any way expresses what the speaker meant. It's a clumsy phrase,
and if means anything at all, it means "no links are clickbait"
i.e., there is no such thing as clickbait. The meaning of Mr.
Stevens' phrase is "some links may just be clickbait, but not all
of them are [and the one that I am presenting is not]." And I
/think/ that's what Mr. Cooper meant to convey.

So what does this mean? That Mr. Stevens and I are pedants and
grammatical prescriptivists? Not at all. It just means that
non-standard, clumsy, or inelegant speech and writing are an
impediment to conveying meaning.

On review, I could have written the sentence to more clearly
represent my point. Eric is correct.

I am neither a prescriptivist nor a descriptivist. I do advocate
clear writing, avoidance of ambiguity, and proper word choice. I
lean toward pedantism in this regard.

Where do you practice this? It would be interesting to see.

Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
written is does not clearly convey my intent.

I wonder if this "sometimes" includes more occasions than "every time I post to
rec.photo.digital"

--
Sandman

On 7 Nov 2015 09:40:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Davoud:
Moving OT, and not intending to denigrate Mr. Cooper in any way,
I'm glad that Mr. Stevens brought that up. The former phrasing is
becoming more common, it seems, but it grates on me. I don't think
that the phrase "all links that are clicked are not 'linkbait'" in
any way expresses what the speaker meant. It's a clumsy phrase,
and if means anything at all, it means "no links are clickbait"
i.e., there is no such thing as clickbait. The meaning of Mr.
Stevens' phrase is "some links may just be clickbait, but not all
of them are [and the one that I am presenting is not]." And I
/think/ that's what Mr. Cooper meant to convey.

So what does this mean? That Mr. Stevens and I are pedants and
grammatical prescriptivists? Not at all. It just means that
non-standard, clumsy, or inelegant speech and writing are an
impediment to conveying meaning.

On review, I could have written the sentence to more clearly
represent my point. Eric is correct.

I am neither a prescriptivist nor a descriptivist. I do advocate
clear writing, avoidance of ambiguity, and proper word choice. I
lean toward pedantism in this regard.

Where do you practice this? It would be interesting to see.

Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
written is does not clearly convey my intent.

I wonder if this "sometimes" includes more occasions than "every time I post to
rec.photo.digital"

Twit.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens