Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 He didn't make any grammar mistakes. 821134[/snapback] You're as wrong about that as you are about my knowledge of stats. There's an apostrophe in the word "it's" when it's short for "it is" "it has" or some other contraction. The apostrophe takes the place of the missing letter or letters. In this case, the word "its" was being used as the gender-neutral equivalent of "his" or "her." There is no missing letter, there is no contraction, and therefore the apostrophe is inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 There is no missing letter, there is no contraction, and therefore the apostrophe is inappropriate. 821174[/snapback] ... therefore making his mistake, a spelling mistake, NOT a grammar mistake... But, a smart guy like you, knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You're as wrong about that as you are about my knowledge of stats. There's an apostrophe in the word "it's" when it's short for "it is" "it has" or some other contraction. The apostrophe takes the place of the missing letter or letters. In this case, the word "its" was being used as the gender-neutral equivalent of "his" or "her." There is no missing letter, there is no contraction, and therefore the apostrophe is inappropriate. 821174[/snapback] I opted to omit that from the sample. So he made no mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 ... therefore making his mistake, a spelling mistake, NOT a grammar mistake... But, a smart guy like you, knew that. 821175[/snapback] In the unlikely event that I had been the one to make the error, you'd be calling it a grammatical mistake. And, for once in your life, you'd be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 In the unlikely event that I had been the one to make the error, you'd be calling it a grammatical mistake. And, for once in your life, you'd be right. 821187[/snapback] Do you enjoy getting your asss kicked in multiple threads? Syhuang is absolutely rodney king-ing you over on the main board over faulty stats, and you are still going on over here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Do you enjoy getting your asss kicked in multiple threads? Syhuang is absolutely rodney king-ing you over on the main board over faulty stats, and you are still going on over here? 821205[/snapback] You just lost all your credibility with this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You just lost all your credibility with this post. 821224[/snapback] Losing all credibility with you is actually a point in his favor to the world at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Losing all credibility with you is actually a point in his favor to the world at large. 821227[/snapback] Glad to know you've appointed yourself to speak for the world at large. Where would the world be without you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Glad to know you've appointed yourself to speak for the world at large. 821236[/snapback] I didn't have to appoint myself anything. It follows a simple, irrefutable, categorical syllogism: A. The world at large does not prefer people always wrong to people sometimes if not often right. B. Holcomb's Arm is always wrong and Ramius is sometimes if not often right. Therefore... C. The world at large does not prefer Holcomb's Arm to Ramius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 B. Holcomb's Arm is always wrong Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog isn't a hopeless loser, and actually leads a meaningful life. Now go back and read the above quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog isn't a hopeless loser, and actually leads a meaningful life. Oh, but wait, according to you I'm always wrong, so that means . . . 821253[/snapback] You know the one about a broken clock being right twice a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog isn't a hopeless loser, and actually leads a meaningful life. Now go back and read the above quote. 821253[/snapback] You'd be wrong here again, and it's embarrassingly obvious why. When someone is always wrong, they cannot just say, "Two and two is four! See? I'm right sometimes!" It simply makes them more stupid, and appear more stupid. There is another simple syllogism you may recognize. I'm sure others do. It is: A. Statistics are a tool to illustrate a point. B. Holcomb's Arm tries to illustrate points with statistics. C. Holcomb's Arm is a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You know the one about a broken clock being right twice a day? 821254[/snapback] What if it's digital and only has 0:00 on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You just lost all your credibility with this post. 821224[/snapback] Oooh, tough luck, Ramius. Looks like you won't be participating in the breeding program... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Stop it Riddler, you're going to crush my delicate psyche. 820851[/snapback] I have learned a long time ago... That crushing your psyche is impossible. I have to admit, it is one of your good traits... But, don't take my word on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What if it's digital and only has 0:00 on it. 821285[/snapback] Ya... Most of the time, I am on a 24 hour clock (military time)... What happens in that case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 You'd be wrong here again, and it's embarrassingly obvious why. When someone is always wrong, they cannot just say, "Two and two is four! See? I'm right sometimes!" It simply makes them more stupid, and appear more stupid. There is another simple syllogism you may recognize. I'm sure others do. It is: A. Statistics are a tool to illustrate a point. B. Holcomb's Arm tries to illustrate points with statistics. C. Holcomb's Arm is a tool. 821273[/snapback] Try this on for size: A. Good environmental decisions require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources. B. Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog is a carbon emissions source without any conceivable justification whatsoever. C. If you want to be a good environmentalist, jump off a cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Try this on for size:A. Good environmental decisions require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources. B. Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog is a carbon emissions source without any conceivable justification whatsoever. C. If you want to be a good environmentalist, jump off a cliff. 821401[/snapback] Did you go to your science teacher for this response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Did you go to your science teacher for this response? 821417[/snapback] Speaking of unnecessary carbon emissions sources, look who just showed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Let me put it in simpler terms: the next time you attempt a 50' jump, don't use a 60' bungee cord. The more extra cord you give yourself, the greater the resulting head injury. Based on the content of your earlier post, I estimated that your cord was ten feet too long. Less foolish posts will result in lower estimates. 820751[/snapback] Hmmm. Do you think that a 60' bungee cord would be worse than 51' bungee cord? Seems to me that it's one of those things that a little too long is the same as a lot too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts