I mean...

[ttaskmaster]

******* and dashcam are hyphenated now?

Always were. Joining of two words, innit.
Dash-cam is the joining of parts of two words, so is hyphenated, but such use varies and marketing seems to prefer it as one. Bell-end has always been thus, although one and two separate words can also be used.

 

[james.miller]

It was still there when I quoted it 8-10 minutes later

Because you opened it the instant I posted it then took 10 minutes to reply. That's on you, nobody else. Jesus ******* christ how are you not understanding that? And the lie was about the timestamp. There isn't one.

Edit: and I've edited this post to show you what happens when you do edit it minutes after posting. Because you know, despite how long you've been here you haven't got a bloody clue.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Always were. Joining of two words, innit.
Dash-cam is the joining of parts of two words, so is hyphenated, but such use varies and marketing seems to prefer it as one. Bell-end has always been thus, although one and two separate words can also be used.

I was going by the dictionary spelling, but obviously that's wrong.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Because you opened it the instant I posted it then took 10 minutes to reply. That's on you, nobody else. Jesus ******* christ how are you not understanding that? And the lie was about the timestamp. There isn't one.
Edit: and I've edited this post to show you what happens when you do edit it minutes after posting. Because you know, despite how long you've been here you haven't got a bloody clue.

I opened it about 8 minutes after you posted, as I was already occupied on another thread at the time.
So whatever you think this proves, I'm happy for you, but it was still there when I came here afterward to read and subsequently picked it up. As for not knowing exactly how the back end of the forum software is programmed - That's never been something I've needed to know and has never been a defining factor of my life, so why would I give a **** whether something updates within 30 seconds or 10 minutes? I put a post up, it appears. Nothing I do on here has been so life-alteringly time-sensitive that I need to care about, to the second, how long it takes... and I still don't care.

As is, I now notice the 'Last Edited X minutes ago' counter does actually update if you sit there watching, but only every 7 minutes - I just watched yours go from "21 minutes ago" to "28 minutes ago", so there are clearly some delays somewhere. Perhaps you also need to have a word with the Mods about that, while you're there?

How does any of this change the fact that this is not about you? How does it make the frequent and widespread usage of a grammatical error into a direct and very personal attack specifically on you?

I think you're just attention-seeking.
If it didn't bother you, as you said previously, you'd have ignored it.
If it actually was an attack on you, you'd have reported me to the Admins and had me banned.
Instead you're just bitching and chasing down every detail you can imagine to try and... well, I'm not even sure what you are trying to do, but it seems you're even failing at that.

It's perhaps unfortunate from your perspective if I write too quickly for your personal taste, but that isn't something that bothers me...

I was going by the dictionary spelling, but obviously that's wrong.

Which edition, and which dictionary?
The 6th Ed OED removed hyphenation from over 16,000 words, to reflect modern internet usage (e-mail being a prime example), but the old form is still perfectly valid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7004661.stm

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Which edition, and which dictionary?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dashcam
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/*******

I did try it your way (the right way, obviously)

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/spellcheck/english?q=bell+end
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/spellcheck/english?q=dash+cam

I'm loving that article from 2007 that you found, 10/10 for effort... You're trying hard, I'll give you that.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I did try it your way (the right way, obviously)

I didn't use a dictionary, though.
Dictionaries are almost always descriptive, not prescriptive, so when arguing about 'correct' usage the results from them as definitive sources are unreliable.

For example:
"The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don'ts’. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as ‘incorrect’. The Dictionary aims to cover the full spectrum of English language usage, from formal to slang, as it has evolved over time."
https://www.oed.com/public/oed3guide/guide-to-the-third-edition-of

I'm loving that article from 2007 that you found, 10/10 for effort... You're trying hard, I'll give you that.

I was always pretty good at English Language (less so with Literature) and back then we even had etymology on our syllabus. It's remained a topic of interest to me and it's been a benefit ever since I started writing formal technical documents at work.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I didn't use a dictionary, though.
Dictionaries are almost always descriptive, not prescriptive, so when arguing about 'correct' usage the results from them as definitive sources are unreliable.

You're right, the Collins English Dictionary is wrong. I'm more than happy to leave it at that; I wouldn't want another 40-pager rager on my hands.

 

[Reality|Bites]

" it's only been 7 pages " reply incoming

 

[james.miller]

opened it about 8 minutes after you posted, as I was already occupied on another thread at the time.
So whatever you think this proves, I'm happy for you, but it was still there when I came here afterward to read and subsequently picked it up

8 minutes after, 10 minutes after, whatever you think it is is irrelevant. if you open the thread the minute a post is made, then reply 10 minutes 8 minutes later, what do you think will happen to that copy of the post you are reading? Nothing. Nothing happens to it. Why do you think I know you jumped on my post like a sad little dog missing his master's leg? because I knew it took me moments to make that correction so if you quoted it, you had to have opened the thread between me posting and me editing the post. And again, had i have taken more than a few minutes, you'd see the 'Last Edited' suffix on the post. There isn't one because I didn't. It's that simple and the '10 minute' timestamp you spoke about was fabricated by you and you and everybody else knows it.

As for not knowing exactly how the back end of the forum software is programmed - That's never been something I've needed to know and has never been a defining factor of my life, so why would I give a **** whether something updates within 30 seconds or 10 minutes? I put a post up, it appears. Nothing I do on here has been so life-alteringly time-sensitive that I need to care about, to the second, how long it takes... and I still don't care.

You've been a member for 8 YEARS and you don't know how post editing works. This isn't about back end stuff, no idea where you are going with that. It's basic forum knowledge and if you don't care, you sure are show us in the most arse-backwards way possible.

As is, I now notice the 'Last Edited X minutes ago' counter does actually update if you sit there watching, but only every 7 minutes - I just watched yours go from "21 minutes ago" to "28 minutes ago", so there are clearly some delays somewhere. Perhaps you also need to have a word with the Mods about that, while you're there?

The problem is your end, works fine for me. *shrug*

Oh, geee, look at that.

I think you're just attention-seeking

In a thread you dragged me in to? Please...

If it didn't bother you, as you said previously, you'd have ignored it.

You're being disingenuous again. I said and clarified that it was my 'mistake' that I don't care about. Apostrophes - I don't care about them. Don't try to conflate that with me taking issue with you trying to call me out in a different thread and failing miserably. Different subject, different response.

Queue more disingenuity and goalpost moving in 3...2....

 

[ttaskmaster]

You're right, the Collins English Dictionary is wrong. I'm more than happy to leave it at that; I wouldn't want another 40-pager rager on my hands.

It's not wrong, though... it just doesn't usually go into detail about what is considered the 'correct' way, either.
Usage (beyond a couple of examples) is 'a whole nother'* subject and Collins does have a separate section on grammar, but it's not part of the dictionary.


*Yes, James, that again was deliberate.

8 minutes after, 10 minutes after, whatever you think it is is irrelevant. if you open the thread the minute a post is made, then reply 10 minutes 8 minutes later, what do you think will happen to that copy of the post you are reading? Nothing. Nothing happens to it. Why do you think I know you jumped on my post like a sad little dog missing his master's leg? because I knew it took me moments to make that correction so if you quoted it, you had to have opened the thread between me posting and me editing the post. And again, had i have taken more than a few minutes, you'd see the 'Last Edited' suffix on the post. There isn't one because I didn't. It's that simple and the '10 minute' timestamp you spoke about was fabricated by you and you and everybody else knows it.

Just LOL... Whatever you say, Princess.
How long is this "a few minutes" in your world, anyway? Google seems to think it's more than 3, usually 5-10, but rarely more than 15 minutes.

Also, I'm still waiting for your official 'Mod approved' value on exactly how long this "few minutes" window is between the actual editing and Last Edited appearing... don't forget to include whether the timer starts from when you hit the edit button, from when you hit the button to submit an edited post, or from when the edited post actually is received at the server end. I'm sure that's a very important factor, too!

You've been a member for 8 YEARS and you don't know how post editing works. This isn't about back end stuff, no idea where you are going with that. It's basic forum knowledge and if you don't care, you sure are show us in the most arse-backwards way possible.

I know how post editing works.
I don't need to know how the system documents that editing. Why on Earth would I ever need to know, to the minute, when someone posted something?
This is honestly the first time anyone has ever bitched about 'how quickly' I did or did not respond to a forum post!

The problem is your end, works fine for me. *shrug*

Well, I live out in the sticks and only have crappy 900Mbps internet, so while I'm sure it's hideously slow compared to yours, it doesn't change the fact that your reply was still showing the error when I posted.

In a thread you dragged me in to? Please...

You came here of your own volition and decided to make something of it. In doing so, you arguably made an example of your own self, taking it personally to the extreme and going full crybully with it.
Once again, it was never about you. I'm sorry that doesn't help your crusade here, but since you care nothing for me or my intent and are only here to throw your attitude around, it won't matter if I say it yet again - IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!!!

You're being disingenuous again. I said and clarified that it was my 'mistake' that I don't care about. Apostrophes - I don't care about them. Don't try to conflate that with me taking issue with you trying to call me out in a different thread and failing miserably. Different subject, different response.

Different?
So when I previously split those out into two different premises to address, you argued the opposite. Now I cover them both at the same time and you flip back the other way... while at the same time accuse me of disingenuousness?
You know, a wise man once told me, "the instant you make a simple mistake will be your own hypocritical undoing".

If I wanted to call you out, I'd have included all your other mistakes and ripped the **** out of every grammatically erroneous post you've spewed out, here, including the one above. If I was going to make an example of you, I'd have addressed you directly in the specific thread the quote was taken from, called you a dozy, uneducated, wilfully ignorant **** and made DAMN ******* SURE you knew when it was a personal attack directed specifically at you.

Saying that - You really can't handle having your mistakes pointed out to you, and you respond very poorly to it... and this time it really is meant as a personal insult.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

You're right, the Collins English Dictionary is wrong. I'm more than happy to leave it at that; I wouldn't want another 40-pager rager on my hands.

I see what you did there and he still replied

8 minutes after, 10 minutes after, whatever you think it is is irrelevant. if you open the thread the minute a post is made, then reply 10 minutes 8 minutes later, what do you think will happen to that copy of the post you are reading? Nothing. Nothing happens to it. Why do you think I know you jumped on my post like a sad little dog missing his master's leg? because I knew it took me moments to make that correction so if you quoted it, you had to have opened the thread between me posting and me editing the post. And again, had i have taken more than a few minutes, you'd see the 'Last Edited' suffix on the post. There isn't one because I didn't. It's that simple and the '10 minute' timestamp you spoke about was fabricated by you and you and everybody else knows it.

100% correct.
Because of my dyslexia I have to go over every post I make quite often editing 4 times and I'm always aware I want to beat the 'last edited' stamp.

 

[arknor]

I walked past some students learning to survey or some such on a field and they were measuring a distance, one of them said the mark was six feet off.
a girl holding the start end of the tape measure replies "where is six feet?"

six feet of what? rope? yarn? subway sandwiches ?

doesn't know what 6ft is whilst literally holding a tape measure.....

 

[james.miller]

Just LOL... Whatever you say, Princess.

Aww, baby's getting frustrated.

How long is this "a few minutes" in your world, anyway? Google seems to think it's more than 3, usually 5-10, but rarely more than 15 minutes.

See, I've already explained this. Did you ignore it, not see it or not understand it? read again:

Nope, wrong. If it took me more than a minute or so to edit that post, the post would have an 'Lasted edited:' suffix at the bottom of it. Do you see one? No. I dont know how much time you have to correct a post before that's added, somebody will be able to confirm but it's a LOT less than 10 minutes.

Should be self explanatory to anybody who can manage to tie their own shoelaces.

Also, I'm still waiting for your official 'Mod approved' value on exactly how long this "few minutes" window is between the actual editing and Last Edited appearing... don't forget to include whether the timer starts from when you hit the edit button, from when you hit the button to submit an edited post, or from when the edited post actually is received at the server end. I'm sure that's a very important factor, too!

Uhh, ok? You could always...oh I don't know...ASK one. You know, like i suggested.

I know how post editing works.

You clearly dont, because you kept bitching about how my post was still there '10 minutes after' i posted it (pre-edit), when it wasn't. It only appeared that way because you opened the thread and then left it 10 minutes to reply. As i have already told you, that's on you, not anybody else. So no, you do not (even though i've explained it...) know how it works.

I don't need to know how the system documents that editing. Why on Earth would I ever need to know, to the minute, when someone posted something?
This is honestly the first time anyone has ever bitched about 'how quickly' I did or did not respond to a forum post!

Agree, why would you need to know how the system documents that editing? You don't, you only need to know what's shown too you. And as for me bitching about editing time, you're having a laugh - look in the mirror LOL

Well, I live out in the sticks and only have crappy 900Mbps internet, so while I'm sure it's hideously slow compared to yours, it doesn't change the fact that your reply was still showing the error when I posted.

^^^ Case in point; You still don't understand. Proven completely.

Different?
So when I previously split those out into two different premises to address, you argued the opposite. Now I cover them both at the same time and you flip back the other way... while at the same time accuse me of disingenuousness?

I didnt argue the opposite at all. Nice strawman. Another complete lie but nice try.

You know, a wise man once told me, "the instant you make a simple mistake will be your own hypocritical undoing".

Yep, just look at yourself. Tragic.

If I wanted to call you out, I'd have included all your other mistakes and ripped the **** out of every grammatically erroneous post you've spewed out, here, including the one above. If I was going to make an example of you, I'd have addressed you directly in the specific thread the quote was taken from, called you a dozy, uneducated, wilfully ignorant **** and made DAMN ******* SURE you knew when it was a personal attack directed specifically at you.

Saying that - You really can't handle having your mistakes pointed out to you, and you respond very poorly to it... and this time it really is meant as a personal insult.

Do it please. No, really. Go for it. We already know you're a petulant man-child, might as well fill that role to the brim.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I've got James Miller ahead on points

 

[drakulton]

It could be worse, it could be this.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Aww, baby's getting frustrated.

Not at all, boyo.
I'm just getting bored, as this isn't even the original argument any more. At best, it's your deflection from throwing an absolute crybully hissy fit over someone pointing out your mistake.

See, I've already explained this. Did you ignore it, not see it or not understand it? read again:

You said, "I dont know how much time you have to correct a post before that's added" - So it could be more than 30 seconds.
You also said, "And again, had i have taken more than a few minutes" - Which definitely is more than 30 seconds, but presumably less than 10 minutes.

Should be self explanatory to anybody who can manage to tie their own shoelaces.

So in your world it takes an as-yet undetermined amount of time somewhere between "probably less than 30 seconds" and 10 minutes... Good to know. I'm sure that very vague guess will strictly govern every post I make in future.

Uhh, ok? You could always...oh I don't know...ASK one. You know, like i suggested.

Why would I?
It's not my assertion that hinges upon the exact time it takes the forum to do something... Perhaps you should do some experimentation and find out the exact time, so you can come back waving it around.

You clearly dont, because you kept bitching about how my post was still there '10 minutes after' i posted it (pre-edit), when it wasn't. It only appeared that way because you opened the thread and then left it 10 minutes to reply. As i have already told you, that's on you, not anybody else. So no, you do not (even though i've explained it...) know how it works.

Why would I have typed out a quick reply, and then sat there waiting for no reason, before sending it.... Nobody does that, surely?

Agree, why would you need to know how the system documents that editing? You don't, you only need to know what's shown too you.

I don't need to know what's shown, either, as the time someone takes to edit something doesn't rule my life.
It rarely even matters that they edited it, although in your case it's funny because despite supposedly not caring about your mistakes, you only edited that one specific error that I picked up on... and which I only posted about (as per the timestamp) 10 minutes after. The other errors are still right there in the post, even now.

And as for me bitching about editing time, you're having a laugh - look in the mirror LOL

I said response time, but never mind. I already know you don't care about such stuff, because that part is about me and not you.

^^^ Case in point; You still don't understand. Proven completely.

What, that 900 meg is too slow (as per your bolded quote) for the forum to update at my end?
Oh well...

I didnt argue the opposite at all. Nice strawman. Another complete lie but nice try.

You began with, "Nope, no dual premises from me. One premises, one bolded sentence I replied directly to".
OK, so we're back to one - "Just accept the fact that you made a common mistake and get on with your life."... except that it's now two different premises again, according to you, and you're using the latter as a reason to get all upset.

As for the actual content of your varying statement(s) - You clearly do care, as you went back and edited the very mistake I then highlighted 10 minutes later. I suspect that care is also why you respond so badly to having those mistakes highlighted, when most other people would just note it for future reference and move on without creating a mess of a thread like this.

Yep, just look at yourself. Tragic.

As above.

Do it please. No, really. Go for it. We already know you're a petulant man-child, might as well fill that role to the brim.

Coming from the **** who utterly lost his **** over being shown his own mistake, and who is now arguing the minutiae of forum processing times to deflect?
Sounds like you already won that audition!

 

[AiiR]

Thought you had to be over the age of 13 to use internet forums? I mean...

 

[shaank]

bruv, innit.

 

[james.miller]

You said, "I dont know how much time you have to correct a post before that's added" - So it could be more than 30 seconds.
You also said, "And again, had i have taken more than a few minutes" - Which definitely is more than 30 seconds, but presumably less than 10 minutes.

It's obviously more than 30 seconds or that post would have had the suffix. it doesn't.
And it's obviously less than 10 minutes since, in the example I gave you, I edited the post 7 minutes after it was posted (which is less time than it took you to reply to my typo) and the suffix is there. And you know it's a timestamp suffix and not something I've typed myself as when you try to quote it, the timestamp isnt included in the quote. Simple. If you want to know the exact time it takes for a suffix to be added..... ask a mod.

It rarely even matters that they edited it, although in your case it's funny because despite supposedly not caring about your mistakes, you only edited that one specific error that I picked up on... and which I only posted about (as per the timestamp) 10 minutes after. The other errors are still right there in the post, even now.

Yeah you're really getting hung up on that. Tell you what.....ask a mod.

You began with, "Nope, no dual premises from me. One premises, one bolded sentence I replied directly to".

More disingenuity. You are again trying to conflate points I've made in order to try and generate some kind of sense of confusion from me. The only one confused here is you.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

If only we had pictures of the keyboards the warriors are duelling with here, then this thread would be up there with Battle-toads. I reckon there's a Ducky Shine with cherry reds being wielded.

I'd also like to add that I've never felt the need to double check my grammar so much since the last time I went toe to toe with Dowie; I'm not even sure if I've used the semi-colon properly or if this even merited a second paragraph.

Total minefield, innit.