Deep Freud Moors

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 13:45:22 +0100, Magda <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:15:40 +0000, in rec.travel.europe, Reid <[email protected]>
    >arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... Following up to Magda
    > ...
    > ... >Now that you mention it... aren't grown-ups expected to write properly ?...
    > ...
    > ... Grown ups, amongst other things, are expected to be able to grasp
    > ... what is important, work within accepted frameworks and accept
    > ... valid criticism without petulance and be grown up enough to
    > ... accept they are sometimes wrong.
    > ... Grammar, punctuation and spelling come almost nowhere on the
    > ... scale.
    >Yours, maybe. My scale has room for many more things.

Magda, strictly focussing on the utmost correct grammar is not going
to get you far in this world, and it not going to ensure you don't say
anything stupid.

Do you select the products you buy primarily on good packaging?
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:22:12 +0000, Keith Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 8 Nov 2003 13:53:24 +0100, Emilia <emilia@(itain't)easy.com> wrote:
    >>[email protected] (David Horne) wrote in
    >>news:1g42ram.1574vz2pmhogqN%[email protected]:
    >>> Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> > Oh yes it does. The rich kids (in general) look better. I'm not
    >>>> > talking about health or clothes here. I'm talking about physical
    >>>> > beauty. As you go up in income people (of all ages - except maybe
    >>>> > babies) people become more attractive. You don't see this??? What
    >>>> > happens is a guy becomes rich and marries a good looking woman. His
    >>>> > kids look better. Then those kids marry the other rich and
    >>>> > beautiful and so on. It's so true I can't believe you don't see it.
    >>>>
    >>>> This totally fails to explain Prince Charles.
    >>>
    >>> His kids are pretty damn hot, though. It's not all Diana's genes IMO.
    >>>
    >>One of them is. And he looks like his mother.
    >>The other: yikes!
    >Which one? :-)
    >http://www.poddys.com/jokes/Cartoons/harry.jpg

I think he's still down here in Oz, last seen making a beeline for
Nimbin...

(I expect about 2% of readers to get that one)
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:52:08 +0000,
[email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

    >Deep Freud Moors <deepfloydmars@yIaWONThBITEoYA!o.co.uk> wrote:
    >> I am sure, but I don't have enough interest in her to start googling.
    >> She is not very successful in riling me.
    >I admit, I was pissed off enough to do the research. It was frightening.
    >A bit like that bit in "The Shining" when the writer's wife realises
    >he's written the _same_ sentence over and over again...
    >David

Oeil werk und non plait, maix Müri eau dahl gürl...
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 13:46:55 +0100, Magda <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:59:38 +1100, in rec.travel.europe, Deep Freud Moors
    ><deepfloydmars@yIaWONThBITEoYA!o.co.uk> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
    > ...
    > ... Touchez!!!
    >"Touché".
    >Et toc.

Merci Magda, mais il était intentionnel, naturellement.
Je suis desolé, j'aime rire de vous, mon petit pédant. O

I would happily speak French more often in this forum, but I don't
like it when people correct me constantly (which happens, because my
written French is pretty bad). It interrupts the flow of conversation,
and thus what I am trying to say. Take offence if you like, but you
won't change my style...
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 13:30:18 +0000, Reid <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Following up to Magda
    >> ... only to the small minded. Your original observation on "lose"
    >> ... with "oo" was the lowest form of usenet behaviour. Accept it.
    >>I gave you a mnemonic sentence to help, *gratis*. You are welcome to use it. Unless, of
    >>course, you are too small minded to accept it.
    >But that sentence is exactly the point! Its your monumental
    >condescension that is the problem. You choose to explain where it
    >is not needed. It took me a couple of posts before it dawned on
    >me you could have tha affrontery to be pointing out a spelling
    >error, I though your sentence must be some allusion to the topic
    >under discussion.

Magda, please read (and re-read if necessary) Reid's comments.
Everyone but you places content over grammar in this forum.

What do you really think is the case?

We are a bunch of insolent cretins that have nothing worth listening
to due to our low ranking of grammar in posts.

or

We simply consider perfect grammar unimportant, as long as clarity is
maintained.
---
DFM

Deep Freud Moors

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:06:06 +0000, Marie Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    ><[email protected]> writes
    >>Marie Lewis writes:
    >>> In the USA. But what about when you want to get a job?
    >>Given the number of people who are employed and still cannot spell, it
    >>is pretty obvious that spelling is not a highly-ranked criterion of
    >>selection.
    >In the USA

And the UK. And yes, I have first hand experience of that.

    >>> It is not just the spelling: you have dreadful grammar and punctuation
    >>> as well. If you cannot learn these simple things, your qualifications
    >>> (!) are somewhat suspect.
    >>See above. It usually doesn't matter.
    >It does to many employers.

How many, and how do you know?

    >>It can be an influence on first impressions when these occur in writing.
    >>It can be important in some types of work for which the ability to write
    >>clearly and correctly is needed. In a great many domains, though, it
    >>matters little. And some people almost never write anything at all, and
    >>so for them it matters still less.
    >It is a sign of laziness and ignorance.

Having brown skin can also be a sign of laziness and ignorance. Being
bald can be a sign of laziness and ignorance (look at the hair
patterns in any corporate boardroom and you will see what I mean).

Being an idiot is also a sign of laziness and ignorance.
---
DFM

Evelynvogtgamble

Robert wrote:
    >
    > Yes because you are at the level where you think spelling is
    > everything. You should know as you move up to the university level
    > spelling doesn't count in many of the subjects - just remembering
    > facts at test time.

Then "education" in America has deteriorated even further than I thought
it had! There WAS a time when college graduates were expected to be
literate - at least in their OWN language. (And to remember those
"facts" for a lifetime, not promptly forget them once "test time" was
over.)

    > That's all at most universities. So I just used
    > most of my time to study (remember facts) and when I was finished to
    > meet girls (have sex). I did so good they said I was an honor student
    > and all this.

Well, "honor" is as honor does - was your "university" even accredited?

    > In fact they acclaimed me nationwide by inducting my
    > into the elite national honor society. I forget what it's called but
    > Hilary Clinton belonged to it too.

If someone with your demonstrable ignorance is a member of Phi Beta
Kappa, I'm the Queen of Rumania!

    > There are good teachers and bad
    > teachers. Which one are you? I think you are in the bad category.

And both she and I think YOU are an incurable idiot! Why don't you just
go away and leave this newsgroup to the adults?

Evelynvogtgamble

Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
    >
    > > Speak for yourself - I don't even know what the hell you're talking
    > > about!
    >
    > Digital signatures are a way to prove that an electronic message
    > definitely was written by a specific person. Unlike handwritten
    > signatures or simple typed signatures (like "-- Mxsmanic" at the end of
    > a post), digital signatures cannot be forged.

But what ARE they? And how do you find them? (There are a few
"forgers" on another of my newsgroups whom I'm sure those whose names
they have been "borrowed" would be happy to report to the forger's ISP.)

    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Evelynvogtgamble

Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    > Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > I didn't say it was absolute but in general. You know that. Don't the
    > > wealthy people in your area look better than the working class
    > > overall? Don't they have prettier faces? Sure they do.
    >
    > Some of them look better because they have expensive cosmetic dentistry.

And cosmetic surgery?

Robert

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Robert) wrote:
    >
    > > Yes because you are at the level where you think spelling is
    > > everything. You should know as you move up to the university level
    > > spelling doesn't count in many of the subjects - just remembering
    > > facts at test time.
    >
    > What did you major in?

Finance but the first two years were all general subjects from
Astronomy to Zoology. And if your memory wasn't good you couldn't do
well on the tersts. They mostly required the reguritation of memorized
facts.

Evelynvogtgamble

Reid wrote:
    >
    > Following up to David Horne
    >
    > >> coronation street of all things, dear oh dear.
    > >
    > >Hey. I'm a fan of Corrie! That's why I lurked there for a while. Her
    > >posts were really creepy.
    >
    > The soaps are an area I just don't like, getting committed to
    > watching so much TV...and I hear people talking as if its real...
    > how would I find the time for usenet if I watched them? :-)

You mean people are like that in England, too? Every once in a while I
overhear one of my bosses and a fellow-employee discussing a situation
involving people they speak as though they knew - saying what so-and-so
should do, etc. - only to discover they're talking about the fictional
characters on some prime-time TV serial! (And these are supposedly
intelligent, educated men - I work for a CPA firm!)

Evelynvogtgamble

Marie Lewis wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]> , Robert
    > <[email protected]> writes
    > >You see it in hoel staff as well - the best
    > >hotels have gorgeous people at the desk. THe worst hoets have an old
    > >lady with warts on her face. It's true!
    >
    > Have you not even a spell checker?

Does him no good, if he lacks the intelligence to find it!

Evelynvogtgamble

Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > Miguel Cruz writes:
    >
    > > They're a way to prove that an electronic message definitely was written by
    > > someone with a record of a specific long number, and optionally, knowledge
    > > of an accompanying password. That's not the same as proving that it was
    > > written by a specific person.
    >
    > Actually, that isn't possible. It's only possible to prove that a
    > message has been signed by someone in possession of a specific key.
    > However, one usually assumes that a person will only sign what he has
    > written (or something of which he approves), just as one assumes in the
    > case of handwritten signatures.

But in the case of "handwritten signatures" by people with a lot of
paperwork to get through, that is NOT neccessariliy true! (When one has
a large volume of papers to sign, it's not unheard of for one to sign
them all without reading every single piece of paper!)

    >
    > Overall, digital signatures are literally trillions of times more secure
    > than handwritten signatures. They are also the only types of signatures
    > that can actually be used on electronic documents.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Evelynvogtgamble

Reid wrote:
    >
    > Following up to Miguel Cruz
    >
    > >> Your butchering the words prevent me
    > >
    > >Prevents...
    >
    > I'm no grammarian but would an alternative be "Your butchering of
    > the words prevent me" ?

No, "of the words" is a prepositional phrase, thus "butchering (singular
noun) "prevents" (singular form of verb to agree with the noun
performinging the action). There seem to be quite a few English
teachers here! (;-D}

    > --
    > Mike Reid
    > "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
    > UK walking & photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
    > Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Emilia

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
    >
    > And both she and I think YOU are an incurable idiot! Why don't you just
    > go away and leave this newsgroup to the adults?

And who would those adults be?
I see few of them here....