I assure to ensure to insure you against grammar mistakes.



  • And I'm sure there'll be at least one grammar mistake in that title. Anyway - onto someone else whom I'm more sure about:

    [IMG]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh189/PaulJHerring/assureensureinsure.png[/IMG]

     

    The linked article if anyone's interested in picking the bones out of it is http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10881-6075621.html . At best I'd describe it as mediocre. It merely lists examples, not explanations, and it doesn't even list assure/ensure/insure.

    (I used http://englishinfocus1.googlepages.com/Assure_Ensure_Insure.htm as my reference if anyone wants to pick apart the subject of this post. See also http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/assure.html which, I think, is telling me the same thing, (for people who want them to mean subtly different things.))

    Cue another language argument thread...
     



  • A few years ago a top manager at my company sent out a memo concerning some new policy.  It concluded with one of my all time favorite grammar WTFs - "There will be no acceptions to this rule".



  • Well I hope you didn't accept the rule!



  • Those tab colours are interesting. What do they do?



  • @dhromed said:

    Those tab colours are interesting. What do they do?
    Your comment appeared as a reply to Moocow, but I'm assuming the question was directed at me.

    Bugger all.

    Well, the colours don't mean anything in particular (though they could be based on URL.)

    I just find it easier to pick tabs out if they're different colours rather than all grey. Especially when they're as close as they are in that screenshot.

     

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    A few years ago a top manager at my company sent out a memo concerning some new policy.  It concluded with one of my all time favorite grammar WTFs - "There will be no acceptions to this rule".

     

    Last year my old company send out a classic blooper that got everyone laughing and made the company look discriminatory towards the older generation, the gem? " Sorry for the incontinence over the weekend"  :-)



  • @PJH said:

    Your comment appeared as a reply to Moocow, but I'm assuming the question was directed at me.

    Threaded views are an awful way to structure a discussion.



  • @Arancaytar said:

    @PJH said:

    Your comment appeared as a reply to Moocow, but I'm assuming the question was directed at me.

    Threaded views are an awful way to structure a discussion.

    "YMMV", and it clearly does. I hate the flat view because there's no easily visible 'linkage' between posts.

    In fact I hate both views (as implemented on Community Server,) so use them as little as possible, but find the threaded view more useful for when I do actually have to use them.

    Threaded views give context to replies that don't quote anything from the parent. Much like dhromed's reply. Which is what threw me a bit, when it didn't appear under my comment.

    Most of the time I get the board posts by email to GMail,  which I'm used to now. Threading gets broken sometimes, use of $'s in posts usually fucks up the message, HTML entites are spelt out in subject lines, but for some reason I prefer emails to the actual message board when just reading messages.

    It's faster rendering for one thing.




  • @Arancaytar said:

    @PJH said:

    Your comment appeared as a reply to Moocow, but I'm assuming the question was directed at me.

    Threaded views are an awful way to structure a discussion.

    Well, they are when most of us don't use the threaded view. 



  • @Arancaytar said:

    @PJH said:

    Your comment appeared as a reply to Moocow, but I'm assuming the question was directed at me.

    Threaded views are an awful way to structure a discussion.



    I usually hate them, but it's useful on sites like Slashdot that get a ton of replies.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.