Which way?



  • Which way?

    Totally taken out of context, but funny nonetheless...



  • Re: Signs, signs, everywhere signs ...

     

    I was planning on drowning, but then when I learned that it would spoil my afternoon plans I changed my mind. Thanks to the Army Corps of Engineers for the great tip.



  • I'll see that and raise you a "Says one thing but means another" sign, courtesy of WalMart:


    Read carefully: it's apparently WalMart company policy to break the law...

    EDIT: Long time reader, new member - why does CS send me an email about my own posts? WTF? I know there was a reply, because I JUST POSTED IT!



  • @jchannell said:

    I'll see that and raise you a "Says one thing but means another" sign, courtesy of WalMart:


    Read carefully: it's apparently WalMart company policy to break the law...

    EDIT: Long time reader, new member - why does CS send me an email about my own posts? WTF? I know there was a reply, because I JUST POSTED IT!

     

    WTF are you talking about?  Sounds like you just fail at parsing English sentences.  Hint:  Natural language is sometimes ambiguous, and that is OK.

    As for CS.  Any future complaints about the forum software should be redirected to flag@whitehouse.gov



  • WTF are you talking about? Sounds like you just fail at parsing English sentences. Hint: Natural language is sometimes ambiguous, and that is OK.

    As for CS. Any future complaints about the forum software should be redirected to flag@whitehouse.gov

    No, I didn't fail - you did. In order for the sign to be correct, it should read: "It is a violation of the law and against company policy...".



  •  @jchannell said:

    No, I didn't fail - you did. In order for the sign to be correct, it should read: "It is a violation of the law and against company policy...".

    While I don't fall back to personal insults as tster's only modus operandi seems to be, I think he has a point here. What's wrong with "... violation of the law and violation of company policy"?



  • Point taken... but that's still a bit awkward, is it not? I could see putting the word "both" in there ("It is a violation of both the law and company policy..."). I guess we could sit here and argue the semantics all day. Any English teachers about?

    Tough crowd. =P



  • @jchannell said:

    but that's still a bit awkward, is it not?
     

    Nope.



  • @PSWorx said:

     @jchannell said:

    No, I didn't fail - you did. In order for the sign to be correct, it should read: "It is a violation of the law and against company policy...".

    While I don't fall back to personal insults as tster's only modus operandi seems to be, I think he has a point here. What's wrong with "... violation of the law and violation of company policy"?

     

    Please point to the "personal insult."  I clearly stated that he "fail[ed] at parsing English sentences" which is a clear statement of fact in direct argument with his main point.  Now if I had said, "You are stupid because you fail at..." then you might have a point.  However, I clearly did not.

     

    PS.  PSWorx is stupid for saying I posted a personal insult.



  • @dhromed said:

    @jchannell said:
    but that's still a bit awkward, is it not?
    Nope.
     

    Reads fine to me too... doesn't even seem remotely misleading. It actually took me a long time to even realize what you were talking about.

     

    I like the don't drown sign though... It's like that old "Don't drink drive, you might hit a bump and spill your beer!" :)



  •  The and implicitly defines both in this instance. Inference, a wonderous tool. 

    Throwing in a both, or against after the and would make it supposedly easier for someone to read, however it is implied that LAW and COMPANY POLICY are being broken by the following. It is quite simple really.

     

    The sign would only be incorrect if it had another modifier after and, such as "and is COMPANY POLICY to ..." without another modifier it simply indicates both are the same.

    /shrug



  • @tster said:

    @PSWorx said:

     @jchannell said:

    No, I didn't fail - you did. In order for the sign to be correct, it should read: "It is a violation of the law and against company policy...".

    While I don't fall back to personal insults as tster's only modus operandi seems to be, I think he has a point here. What's wrong with "... violation of the law and violation of company policy"?

     

    Please point to the "personal insult."  I clearly stated that he "fail[ed] at parsing English sentences" which is a clear statement of fact in direct argument with his main point.  Now if I had said, "You are stupid because you fail at..." then you might have a point.  However, I clearly did not.

     

    PS.  PSWorx is stupid for saying I posted a personal insult.

     

    Surely PSWorx is stupid for saying "only modus operandi" when he should have said "only modus operandum"?

     



  • @upsidedowncreature said:

     

    Surely PSWorx is stupid for saying "only modus operandi" when he should have said "only modus operandum"?

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.  Hence, "modus operandi".



  • @bstorer said:

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.
     

    I love you.



  • @bstorer said:

    @upsidedowncreature said:

     

    Surely PSWorx is stupid for saying "only modus operandi" when he should have said "only modus operandum"?

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.  Hence, "modus operandi".
     

    so, I'm confused, upsidedowncreature is stupid now?



  • @bstorer said:

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.  Hence, "modus operandi".

     

    I love you too! Actually, I used it because it sounded cool. Thanks for letting me know the grammar behind it.



  • @durendal.mk3 said:

    @bstorer said:

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.
     

    I love you.

     

    Yea, that's his M.O.



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:

    @upsidedowncreature said:

     

    Surely PSWorx is stupid for saying "only modus operandi" when he should have said "only modus operandum"?

    He'd have been stupid if he did say "modus operandum".  The phrase is literally translated as "method of working," which is clearly genitive.  So while operandum is the gerund of operor,  operandī is the genitive case of that gerund.  Hence, "modus operandi".
     

    so, I'm confused, upsidedowncreature is stupid now?

    To summarize, upsidedowncreature is stupid for failing at Latin, PSWorx is stupid for saying you posted a personal insult, your only modus operandi is to fall back to personal insults, and I am the smartest man alive.



  • @syn2083 said:

    The and implicitly defines both in this instance. Inference, a wonderous tool. 

    Throwing in a both, or against after the and would make it supposedly easier for someone to read, however it is implied that LAW and COMPANY POLICY are being broken by the following. It is quite simple really

     

     

    In English it is bad to use too many parentheses. In programming like math, they are helpful e.g. English is not LISP.



  • @bstorer said:

    ...and I am the smartest man alive.
    Do you always drink beer?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @bstorer said:

    ...and I am the smartest man alive.
    Do you always drink beer?

    Not always, but when I do, I drunk-dial my ex-girlfriend get plastered and grope whoever comes close strip down to my underwear and sing show tunes on the coffee table drink Dos Equis.



  • @bstorer said:

    so, I'm confused, upsidedowncreature is stupid now?
     

    To be fair, I'm a bit less stupid now than I was before.  Whodathoughtit?



  • @upsidedowncreature said:

    @bstorer said:

    so, I'm confused, upsidedowncreature is stupid now?
     

    To be fair, I'm a bit less stupid now than I was before.

    You say that as you fail at quoting...



  •  There are actually two ambiguities in the Walmart sign. The first has been discussed: "It is (a VIOLATION of the LAW) and (COMPANY POLICY)" vs "It is a VIOLATION of (the LAW and COMPANY POLICY)". The second is "(to enter a Pharmacy) without (a licensed Pharmacist present)" vs "to enter (a Pharmacy without a licensed Pharmacist present)". The latter parsing would create a bit of a bootstrap problem.



  • @pjt33 said:

     There are actually two ambiguities in the Walmart sign. The first has been discussed: "It is (a VIOLATION of the LAW) and (COMPANY POLICY)" vs "It is a VIOLATION of (the LAW and COMPANY POLICY)". The second is "(to enter a Pharmacy) without (a licensed Pharmacist present)" vs "to enter (a Pharmacy without a licensed Pharmacist present)". The latter parsing would create a bit of a bootstrap problem.

     

    That explains why Wal-Mart has 24 hour stores.


Log in to reply
 

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