Subject:
|
Re: TLG investigation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:10:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[lpien@IWANTNOSPAM.ctp.]nomorespam[com]
|
Viewed:
|
857 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > Communication was did.
>
> It could be me, but I don't get it?
That's a saying/shorthand from NITPICK FORUM back in my IBM days...
Here's more detail:
"Communication was did." is ungrammatical. Everyone knows it. But most
people can quickly parse out that the statement is saying that some
communication did happen, and that it was effective in conveying
meaning. And the fact that it IS ungrammatical acknowledges that there
may have been a better way to have done the communication but it
nevertheless happened.
In this case, my "editor syntax" snippet was intended to convey that I
acknowledge that I mangled the name, but was not intended to convey any
particular editor command. You posted a different syntax, which could be
interpreted as a correction of my syntax.
By saying "communication was did", I'm claiming that I made my point (I
mangled the name) whether or not it was the absolute best or correct way
to do it.
Helps?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: TLG investigation
|
| On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:10:46 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote: Lar also wrote (which attribution he snipped. Naughty Larry.) (...) <snip explanation> (...) Immensely. I'd never seen that particular phrase before - and that's confusing, (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG investigation
|
| (...) I have by now forgotten what that syntax I used was originally from, but I've gotten used to it on ASR. :) (...) It could be me, but I don't get it? Jasper (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
