Re: Budget hifi opinion

[George M. Middius]

PoopieBorg shat:

> > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound

> I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

Goodness, yes, Poopie. Subjective impressions and emotional responses are
completely irrelevant when it comes to music. Thank the lord for
digitization of recordings -- now a 'borg can proove™ that everything
sounds the same.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> PoopieBorg shat:
>
> > > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound
>
> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

What's with the [sic] btw ?


> Goodness, yes, Poopie. Subjective impressions and emotional responses are
> completely irrelevant when it comes to music. Thank the lord for
> digitization of recordings -- now a 'borg can proove™ that everything
> sounds the same.

I leave the subjective for my personal response to music, not technical evaluations. You can have
an awesome response to music from even the lowest-fi equipment btw ( hence why tubies get so
excited ) !

It's a fool's paradise to imagine that technology will make the music more involving than it
already was.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:49:48 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> PoopieBorg shat:
>>
>> > > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound
>>
>> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
>> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>
>What's with the [sic] btw ?

I've been wondering the same thing, but George refuses to tell us. I
think he has access to a "Correct English" book that lists errors the
rest of us have never heard of. Either that or he gets a charge out of
writing (sic).

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:49:48 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >"George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> >> PoopieBorg shat:
> >>
> >> > > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound
> >>
> >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
> >
> >What's with the [sic] btw ?
>
> I've been wondering the same thing, but George refuses to tell us. I
> think he has access to a "Correct English" book that lists errors the
> rest of us have never heard of. Either that or he gets a charge out of
> writing (sic).

Either that or he simply can't spell for tuppence / twopence.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> PoopieBorg shat:

> >> > > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound

> >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

> >What's with the [sic] btw ?

> I've been wondering the same thing, but George refuses to tell us.

It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.

> think he has access to a "Correct English" book that lists errors the
> rest of us have never heard of. Either that or he gets a charge out of
> writing (sic)[sic].

When you insert the notation [sic] ot indicate an error in the original
poster's post, you should enclose it in square brackets. Don't they teach
you anything in religious school?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> paul packer said:
>
> > >> PoopieBorg shat:
>
> > >> > > The most recent edition of The Absolute Sound
>
> > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>
> > >What's with the [sic] btw ?
>
> > I've been wondering the same thing, but George refuses to tell us.
>
> It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>
> > think he has access to a "Correct English" book that lists errors the
> > rest of us have never heard of. Either that or he gets a charge out of
> > writing (sic)[sic].
>
> When you insert the notation [sic] ot indicate an error in the original
> poster's post, you should enclose it in square brackets. Don't they teach
> you anything in religious school?

There was no error to correct.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Doofus the Donkey dorked:

> > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

> > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.

> There was no error to correct.

You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>
> > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>
> > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>
> > There was no error to correct.
>
> You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].

No I didn't !

You're just an attention slut aren't you ?

Graham

[Osama bin Fuktar]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>>
>> > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
>> > > > >> > electronics
>> > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>>
>> > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>>
>> > There was no error to correct.
>>
>> You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>
> No I didn't !
>
> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>
> Graham
>
Where I come from, we eat donkeys.

[George M. Middius]

Doofus the Donkey dorked:

> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.

> > > There was no error to correct.

> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].

> No I didn't !

Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!

> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?

Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
the right.

Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>
>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>
>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>
>> > > There was no error to correct.
>
>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>
>> No I didn't !
>
>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!
>
>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>
>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
>the right.
>
>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.

Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
no one else on this NG can either.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>
> > > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> > > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>
> > > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>
> > > > There was no error to correct.
>
> > > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>
> > No I didn't !
>
> Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!

So, you're wrong !

[Harry Lavo]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>>
>>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
>>> > > > > >> > electronics
>>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>>
>>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>>
>>> > > There was no error to correct.
>>
>>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>>
>>> No I didn't !
>>
>>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!
>>
>>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>>
>>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
>>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
>>the right.
>>
>>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
>>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
>>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
>
> Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> no one else on this NG can either.
>

"which" instead of "that" (more correct) and publications don't literally
"talk".

and

"having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"

Perhaps three errors?

Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples' understanding. But
grammatical errors nonetheless.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Doofus the Donkey dorked:
> >
> >> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
> >> > > > > >> > electronics
> >> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
> >
> >> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
> >
> >> > > There was no error to correct.
> >
> >> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
> >
> >> No I didn't !
> >
> >Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!
> >
> >> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
> >
> >Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
> >unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
> >the right.
> >
> >Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
> >stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
> >the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
>
> Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> no one else on this NG can either.

I'd guess *that* you'd be wrong, but some might think it a question
of.....style.

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


>>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
>>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality


>>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]


That's "Dummkopf", George.


>>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
>>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
>>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.


>Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
>no one else on this NG can either.


"I wouldn't trust any publication that talks about electronics
purporting to have properties like spaciousness and
three-dimensionality."

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> > [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
> >>
> >>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
> >>> > > > > >> > electronics
> >>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
> >>
> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
> >>
> >>> > > There was no error to correct.
> >>
> >>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
> >>
> >>> No I didn't !
> >>
> >>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!
> >>
> >>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
> >>
> >>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
> >>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
> >>the right.
> >>
> >>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
> >>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
> >>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
> >
> > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> > no one else on this NG can either.
> >
>
> "which" instead of "that" (more correct) and publications don't literally
> "talk".
>
> and
>
> "having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"
>
> Perhaps three errors?
>
> Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples' understanding. But
> grammatical errors nonetheless.

You can't replace having with has in the above without reconstructing the
sentence.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> >> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
> >
> >> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
> >
> >> > > There was no error to correct.
> >
> >> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
> >
> >> No I didn't !
> >
> >Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!

> >> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?

> >Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
> >unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
> >the right.

> >Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
> >stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
> >the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.

> Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> no one else on this NG can either.

1. which[sic]
2. ......[sic]

Now everybody can "spot them".




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

> "which" instead of "that" (more correct)

Right. (!)

> and publications don't literally "talk".

Don't you think that trope is OK, since it's in common usage? I don't
think an informal but recognizable idiom qualifies as an error.

> "having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"

I think his usage was OK there. The gerund acts as a nominative in the
subordinate clause.

> Perhaps three errors?
> Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples'[sic] understanding. But
> grammatical errors nonetheless.

The second one I saw is the misplaced ellipsis. Since nothing was elided,
it's an erroneous usage.

[sic] semper erratis!




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Harry Lavo]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> > [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>> >>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>> >>
>> >>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
>> >>> > > > > >> > electronics
>> >>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>> >>
>> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>> >>
>> >>> > > There was no error to correct.
>> >>
>> >>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>> >>
>> >>> No I didn't !
>> >>
>> >>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they
>> >>are!
>> >>
>> >>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>> >>
>> >>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic.
>> >>But
>> >>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm
>> >>in
>> >>the right.
>> >>
>> >>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either
>> >>too
>> >>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to
>> >>entertain
>> >>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
>> >
>> > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
>> > no one else on this NG can either.
>> >
>>
>> "which" instead of "that" (more correct) and publications don't literally
>> "talk".
>>
>> and
>>
>> "having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"
>>
>> Perhaps three errors?
>>
>> Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples' understanding. But
>> grammatical errors nonetheless.
>
> You can't replace having with has in the above without reconstructing the
> sentence.
>

You are right...my bad. I actually related the verb back to "publication"
instead of "electronics". I'm generally not a "nitpicker" and obviously
don't do it that well.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of electronics
> >>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality

> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]

> That's "Dummkopf"[sic], George.

Actually, I was addressing both paul and Poopie. But congrats on the
correct usage of brackets around your erroneous "sic".

> >>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
> >>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
> >>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.

> >Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> >no one else on this NG can either.

Looks like you were wrong there. Two others spotted at least one of them.
And now thanks to Harry, we have a sub-sub-sub-thread on some fine points
of grammar and usage.

> "I wouldn't trust any publication that talks about electronics
> purporting to have properties like spaciousness and
> three-dimensionality."

Excellent! You fixed both of the Poopie-isms.



--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore"
> > wrote
> in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius
>>>> <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talks of electronics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having......[sic] spaciousness and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> three-dimensionality
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no error to correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for
>>>>>>> each [sic].
>>>>>
>>>>>> No I didn't !
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can
>>>>> see where they are!
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or
>>>>> compulsive critic. But
>>>>> unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a
>>>>> criticism, I make sure I'm in
>>>>> the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them
>>>>> unambiguously. You are either too
>>>>> stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too
>>>>> egomaniacal to entertain
>>>>> the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I
>>>> can't. And I'd bet no one else on this NG can either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "which" instead of "that" (more correct) and
>>> publications don't literally "talk".
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "having" instead of "has" referring to the singular
>>> "publication" Perhaps three errors?
>>>
>>> Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples'
>>> understanding. But grammatical errors nonetheless.
>>
>> You can't replace having with has in the above without
>> reconstructing the sentence.

> You are right...my bad. I actually related the verb back
> to "publication" instead of "electronics". I'm generally
> not a "nitpicker" and obviously don't do it that well.

Obviously, Harry has greater interest and expertise in grammar than audio.

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> >
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> >> > [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> >> >>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
> >> >>
> >> >>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
> >> >>> > > > > >> > electronics
> >> >>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
> >> >>
> >> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
> >> >>
> >> >>> > > There was no error to correct.
> >> >>
> >> >>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
> >> >>
> >> >>> No I didn't !
> >> >>
> >> >>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they
> >> >>are!
> >> >>
> >> >>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
> >> >>
> >> >>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic.
> >> >>But
> >> >>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm
> >> >>in
> >> >>the right.
> >> >>
> >> >>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either
> >> >>too
> >> >>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to
> >> >>entertain
> >> >>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> >> > no one else on this NG can either.
> >> >
> >>
> >> "which" instead of "that" (more correct) and publications don't literally
> >> "talk".
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> "having" instead of "has" referring to the singular "publication"
> >>
> >> Perhaps three errors?
> >>
> >> Subtle, and hardly in the way of most peoples' understanding. But
> >> grammatical errors nonetheless.
> >
> > You can't replace having with has in the above without reconstructing the
> > sentence.
> >
>
> You are right...my bad. I actually related the verb back to "publication"
> instead of "electronics". I'm generally not a "nitpicker" and obviously
> don't do it that well.

Replacing with 'that have' would be ok though.

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>


>> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]


>> That's "Dummkopf"[sic], George.


>Actually, I was addressing both paul and Poopie. But congrats on the
>correct usage of brackets around your erroneous "sic".


Not entirely erroneous, George.
In German, the plural of "Dummkopf" would be "Dummköpfe".

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]

> >> That's "Dummkopf"[sic], George.

> >Actually, I was addressing both paul and Poopie. But congrats on the
> >correct usage of brackets around your erroneous "sic".

> Not entirely erroneous, George.
> In German, the plural of "Dummkopf" would be "Dummköpfe".

Oh. Well, that's what I meant. :-)




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Sander deWaal said:
>
> > >> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]
>
> > >> That's "Dummkopf"[sic], George.
>
> > >Actually, I was addressing both paul and Poopie. But congrats on the
> > >correct usage of brackets around your erroneous "sic".
>
> > Not entirely erroneous, George.
> > In German, the plural of "Dummkopf" would be "Dummköpfe".
>
> Oh. Well, that's what I meant. :-)

Yeah right !

Graham

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> paul packer said:

> > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> > no one else on this NG can either.
>
> 1. which[sic]
> 2. ......[sic]
>
> Now everybody can "spot them".

Everybody else, you mean.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
> > > no one else on this NG can either.

> > 1. which[sic]
> > 2. ......[sic]

> > Now everybody can "spot them".

> Everybody else, you mean.

Don't get your feathers ruffled. I already gave you credit.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:07:35 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:49:08 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
>> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Doofus the Donkey dorked:
>>>
>>>> > > > > >> > I wouldn't trust any publication which[sic] talks of
>>>> > > > > >> > electronics
>>>> > > > > >> > having......[sic] spaciousness and three-dimensionality
>>>
>>>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen.
>>>
>>>> > > There was no error to correct.
>>>
>>>> > You made two errors, you uneducated donkey. One for each [sic].
>>>
>>>> No I didn't !
>>>
>>>Yes you did! I marked them both with [sic]s! You can see where they are!
>>>
>>>> You're just an attention slut aren't you ?
>>>
>>>Bad diagnosis, Poopie. I'm more of a nitpicker or compulsive critic. But
>>>unlike you, when I open my mouth to voice a criticism, I make sure I'm in
>>>the right.
>>>
>>>Two errors, Poophead. I pinpointed them unambiguously. You are either too
>>>stupid to even know what I'm talking about or too egomaniacal to entertain
>>>the possibility you've made a fool of yourself.
>>
>> Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
>> no one else on this NG can either.
>>
>
>"which" instead of "that" (more correct)

Oh dear....

I I think anybody who makes an error like that should be tortured to
death.

>and publications don't literally
>"talk".

Now we ARE scraping the bottom of the barrel. After this, I see a
grammar obsession starting on RAO. And we all know who to blame, don't
we? Let's get him......

[paul packer]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:50:48 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

>George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>
>
>>> >>> > > > It means I'm pointing out an error, dummkopfen. [sic]
>
>
>>> That's "Dummkopf"[sic], George.
>
>
>>Actually, I was addressing both paul and Poopie. But congrats on the
>>correct usage of brackets around your erroneous "sic".
>
>
>Not entirely erroneous, George.
>In German, the plural of "Dummkopf" would be "Dummköpfe".

Oh dear....now we're correcting German grammar....

HELP!!!!

[paul packer]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:10:47 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote:
>
>> paul packer said:
>
>> > Well, I don't know if Graham can spot them, but I can't. And I'd bet
>> > no one else on this NG can either.
>>
>> 1. which[sic]
>> 2. ......[sic]
>>
>> Now everybody can "spot them".
>
>Everybody else, you mean.


You should get something. I'll see what I've got lying around.

Hmmm, what this? 'The George M. Middius Award For Microscopic
Nitpicking". Yep, that should do.....

[paul packer]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:58:56 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>The gerund acts as a nominative in the subordinate clause.


I hope you realize this kind of talk turns me on, George.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:45:40 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:



>When you insert the notation [sic] ot indicate an error in the original
>poster's post, you should enclose it in square brackets. Don't they teach
>you anything in religious school?

Only that Jesus died for me. And not in square brackets, though I'm
sure that would have been extremely painful too.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >The gerund acts as a nominative in the subordinate clause.

> I hope you realize this kind of talk turns me on, George.

Not my intention. Your problem, not mine.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006