makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: m II on 29 Jun 2010 02:31 JosephKK wrote: > Hate is too precious an emotion for such a trivial inducement, just the > same i despise arrogance, willful ignorance, and combinations of the two. Agreed. I'll tone it down. How about 'My bemusement with fathead pr*cks is tepid, nay, lukewarm at best". Shucks, you're right. I feel keener by having saved the currency of castigation for an occasion truly deserving of it. Thank you. mike (amateur alliterator)
From: Pieyed Piper on 29 Jun 2010 02:50 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:31:45 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: > >> Hate is too precious an emotion for such a trivial inducement, just the >> same i despise arrogance, willful ignorance, and combinations of the two. > >Agreed. I'll tone it down. > >How about 'My bemusement with fathead pr*cks is tepid, nay, lukewarm >at best". > >Shucks, you're right. I feel keener by having saved the currency of >castigation for an occasion truly deserving of it. > >Thank you. > > >mike (amateur alliterator) You should have turned the gun on yourself, since you claim to 'save it' for one that deserves it.
From: krw on 29 Jun 2010 18:35
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:30:54 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> That is, you can't always tell if the first version means >> >> {Archie, cockroach, Liver Lover AND Piehole Piker } (a 3-element >> list) or >> {Archie, cockroach, Liver Lover, Piehole Piker } (a list >> containing 4 elements) >> >> It's a question of style. I always thought it was stuffy until I >> wrote something that needed that extra comma to be clear. Now it's a >> habit. >> >> Thanks for the reminders though! > > >Point taken. It appears the whole list has to be taken into account in >order to make sure no ambiguities can exist. That's the way we were taught. >Now I'm going to watch not only the ANDs, but the ORs. Using your >approach, that OR may cause a split also. Yep, equivalent logic. |