Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Open threads

Mar 19, 2012

Weekly Open Thread 19-23 March 2012

A place to discuss news that doesn't yet have its own individual post. Like anything that happened today. Enjoy.

User login status :

Share

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

56 comments

56 thoughts on “Weekly Open Thread 19-23 March 2012

  1. [I’m not sure if should be ‘have’ or ‘had’ though. Perhaps some of the resident prescriptivists (I’m looking at you Ms Barlow) can enlighten us, Fractious.]

    He should, however, have attributed the specific passages…

    “However” can’t change the tense of the verb. The “of” is really a kind of ‘eggcorn’ — a mishearing of the contraction, {‘ve} for ‘have’

  2. Fractious

    Howard, so “of” instead have “have”?

    Given that the sentence doesn’t make sense otherwise, indeed.

    I of little hope have you admitting this was not a simple spelling error.

    Seeing as it is an error of usage not spelling, probably not. But at least error was admitted, Fractious, which is more than can be said about yourself regarding your previously highlighted erroneous charge bourne of a failure to understand what it was you were reading.

    Self-flattery is rarely flattering, Howard.

    True, but it sure feels good.

  3. Howard, so “of” instead have “have”? I of little hope have you admitting this was not a simple spelling error.

    I’m sure you’ll get to ping me eventually

    Self-flattery is rarely flattering, Howard.

  4. [The suspect, a French citizen of Algerian origin, had been under surveillance by France’s domestic intelligence service for several years]

    So you’ve been watching this terrrrrst for years. You have all the draconian laws you could possibly want, and he wanders about killing people for a few weeks AND you can’t “capture” him? Instead he has to die in slow motion falling backwards out of the window while still firing his guns at Hugo Weaving??

    Fetch us some reality, please.

  5. Fractious

    Plagiarism’s commonly accepted definition revolves around the uncredited wholesale copying of chunks of others’ work, not of one’s own.

    Very true, Fractious, but you appear to have misunderstood what was written. Gittins has apparently lifted a good deal of unattributed lines (mixed in with legitimate quotes) straight from an OECD report he was writing about, not that he was writing himself. It seems you’ve failed to read the ‘about’ before choosing to reply.
    So chin-up, Fractious, I’m sure you’ll get to ping me eventually. I would, however, recommend reading what it is you’re replying to as a first step in ensuring this does happen, though.

    He should, however, of have attributed the specific passages…

    Given that it doesn’t even appear to make sense otherwise, I would’ve thought it was quite clear the ‘of’ in this case is a typo. I’m not sure if should be ‘have’ or ‘had’ though. Perhaps some of the resident prescriptivists (I’m looking at you Ms Barlow) can enlighten us, Fractious.