"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Grammatic is perfectlt fine. Look it up fool.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Nope. Look it up.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham


And you are quite wrong Graham.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your
preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)



**** me - didn't spot the cross-posting!

Jeez.....

liquidator wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham


And you are quite wrong Graham.

Grammatical would certainly be preferred British English use. C.F. a
mathematical error and a mathematic error.

Graham

Eiron wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.


Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

'Grammatic' is a valid alternative to 'grammatical' according to the OED.
A man should be praised, not criticized, for the breadth of his vocabulary.

Oh, definitely. One can easily become to pedantic, as we see so often
with the rote-learning, slow-learning "engineers" on these conferences.
But there is a fine line between civil tolerance of loose speaking and
being complaisant about the sort of barbaric mutilation Poopie
Stevenson and, even worse, his American counterpart Slapdash Krueger
inflict on the language.

I rather enjoyed "liquidator's" contribution. Reminded me of when TIME
Magazine asked why engineers are the ugliest people in the world and
went on to describe Poopie and Slapdash!

The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain why, Eiron. Unless we're supposed
to divine what is in your mind by the magic of "homogenious" rods.
Meanwhile, I give it to your again in context:

*******

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


liquidator wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition
that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham


And you are quite wrong Graham.

Grammatical would certainly be preferred British English use. C.F. a
mathematical error and a mathematic error.

Graham


According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty much
interchangeable.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred. There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hey, Keefie, I don't mind an entertaining fellow like you hijacking my
threads for your amateur recording efforts, but some of these guys
exist solely for the purpose of eating alive those who poach on their
preserves.

When they finish with you, you might enjoy this, in which I put the
seal of doom on Slapdash Krueger's pretentions to being a recording
engineer:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Heh-heh!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



Keith G wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your
preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)



**** me - didn't spot the cross-posting!

Jeez.....

And here, lest we forget, is the famous post KeefieG hijacked for his
own dastardly ends. Hee-hee!

****

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham

Once more you demonstrate your barbaric disregard for the niceties of
your mother tongue, Poopie. "Grammatic" is perfectly good usage.

Would you care to entertain us with your thoughts on the main issue in
this thread:

*****

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

liquidator wrote:

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.


Yes, but we are talking about English.

Ian