 | | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Few are more anal than I when it comes to the proliferation of such apparent pseudo-words as this, but the burden of precedence is against us. According to www.yourdictionary.com the word "attendee" first saw use in 1937, so if we're (note (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) Not that I'm an expert on grammar, but my entire life 'begs the question' meant to expound on the previous thought with a question... let me see if I can make a Daveish scenario... Person 1 "I think that your interest in LEGO is too extreme." (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
|
(...) ...there's an apostrophe in "we're" when used as an abbreviation of "we are". I always wondered about the title of that New Zealand film "Once Were Warriors", but apparently it is intended to be the past participle of 'are', as the line is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) If they are, then yes, but if the losing side suddenly decides it doesn't like the rules and wants to change in mid-game, you can bet it won't sit well with the side that's ahead. And no one will take the new rules seriously if they are (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) As long as Tim Courtney apparently wrote the mail on behalf of LDraw.org, I don't think it is a personal mail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring it's content up in a public newsgroup. I would have tended to agree with you, had the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
