A request

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Indeed, the original poster hoist by his own petard makes the point of this thread perfectly.

Neil

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
It's rare lea ever wrong

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
It's letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

(Attributed to Martha Snow)

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

I thought Neil had unilaterally decided to change the spelling of arbor to arbour in the latest MEW.

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 05/01/2016 08:57:52:

Posted by Bazyle on 04/01/2016 22:49:51:

Talking of spelling can't someone correct the ru**y title?

Please.

edit: I mean the line under the title before the title police have a go at me.

Edited By Bazyle on 04/01/2016 22:51:24

.

Bazyle,

Don't you think that would rather spoil it

One of the few joys in this thread is that little reminder that none of us is perfect.

MichaelG.

Surely you mean are perfect Michael.

At work, once, I spent some time mastering authoring in MS Word with zero grammatical errors. Then one day thought screw this thinking I am not Gates or dare I say it an American although that aspect doesn't exactly relate.

One of the strange facts about MS zero errors is that my memo's didn't have as much effect as my normal ones. Those invariably caused people to feel like they should get up and actually do something rather than spend hours talking about it.

I wonder if the same thing applies to posts in forums. Probably not.

John

–

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Ajohnw on 05/01/2016 16:26:59:

Surely you mean are perfect Michael.

.

NO, John, I do not.

The word "none" is a concatenation of "no one" [or perhaps "not one"] and is therefore singular.

MichaelG.

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 05/01/2016 16:51:55:

Posted by Ajohnw on 05/01/2016 16:26:59:

Surely you mean are perfect Michael.

.

NO, John, I do not.

The word "none" is a concatenation of "no one" [or perhaps "not one"] and is therefore singular.

MichaelG.

Really Michael. Either is fine after a fashion. I tried to paste Cambridge's view on the subject but the forum reckoned that the post was too long. Due to the formatting I assume. In real terms either form is ok in English but have different implications. They also imply US use may be different. In this case I have my doubts about that.

I read read rather a lot and often wonder why I feel vaguely uncomfortable reading books written by American authors.

To be honest when I read threads like this I often feel that one way or the other pots are calling kettles black. The main aspect of a post is that it is understandable – if some one chooses to read it. Choosing to act on it is an entirely different matter. There also seems to be a tendency for some people to make assumptions about people's intelligence based on the particular style of vernacular that they choose to use. That is plainly stupid.

John

–

[JAParticipant @ja]

According to my dictionary (Collins English) an arbour is very different from an arbor except in the USA. An arbour is a shady glade or bower shaded by trees. I suppose this is where the nuts, walnuts or chestnuts, come from.

Enough nut picking.

JA

[mark costello 1Participant @markcostello1]

Here in America the nuts(and fruits) come from California.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Ajohnw on 05/01/2016 17:29:06:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 05/01/2016 16:51:55:

Posted by Ajohnw on 05/01/2016 16:26:59:

Surely you mean are perfect Michael.

.

NO, John, I do not.

The word "none" is a concatenation of "no one" [or perhaps "not one"] and is therefore singular.

MichaelG.

Really Michael. Either is fine after a fashion. I tried to paste Cambridge's view on the subject but the forum reckoned that the post was too long. Due to the formatting I assume. In real terms either form is ok in English but have different implications. They also imply US use may be different. In this case I have my doubts about that.

….

.

… and yet you presumed to correct my implication.

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

When I was in the military one was taught to keep reports concise and to the point.

Some of the comments on this (and other) forums are noted for their verbosity.

Or to put it into plain English – Some people do tend to waffle on and on and on.

* Danny M *

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Danny M2Z on 05/01/2016 22:09:08:

When I was in the military one was taught to keep reports concise and to the point.

Some of the comments on this (and other) forums are noted for their verbosity.

That seems to suggest that you think military reports and online forums are comparable and should therefore adhere to the same standards.

Really? I don't see the connection.

Edited By Bandersnatch on 05/01/2016 22:23:26

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 05/01/2016 22:22:21:

That seems to suggest that you think military reports and online forums are comparable and should therefore adhere to the same standards.

Really? I don't see the connection.

I was making a personal observation.

The sub-title of this thread mentions unreadable posts. When one has to wade through lines of waffle to arrive at the point that the poster is trying to make the answer can be hidden in the noise.

When my eyes glaze over, then that post is unreadable imho.

* Danny M *

[Author]

Posts