Richard

[Rik]

Good to see I'm not imagining things.

Obviously not a Matrix fan then...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Obviously not a Matrix fan then...

Matrix = Excellent
Reloaded = OK
Revolutions = Crap

You know what I meant :P

 

[Rik]

Matrix = Excellent
Reloaded = OK
Revolutions = Crap

You know what I meant :P

I know what you ment, but who knows weather you are imagining it or not? :alien8:

 

[Neil Pickup]

I know what you ment, but who knows weather you are imagining it or not? :alien8:

The Grammar Police would like to point out that the weather is what happens outside (i.e. rain whenever you want to play cricket) and the word that you wanted was whether.

Indeed, maybe you are just a malicious piece of software that needs returning to the Source ASAP.

 

[Rik]

The Grammar Police would like to point out that the weather is what happens outside (i.e. rain whenever you want to play cricket) and the word that you wanted was whether.

Indeed, maybe you are just a malicious piece of software that needs returning to the Source ASAP.

Yes indeed RIK just happens to stand for "Ridiculously Intelligent Killercyborgprogramthatisouttogetyou"

The Grammer Police need a new job if they are called out for the lack of a single letter "h", lacking, funnily enough, because my sister's computer has a keyboard with a highly intelligent "h" key which seems to have evolved a mind of it's very own.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes indeed RIK just happens to stand for "Ridiculously Intelligent Killercyborgprogramthatisouttogetyou"

The Grammer Police need a new job if they are called out for the lack of a single letter "h", lacking, funnily enough, because my sister's computer has a keyboard with a highly intelligent "h" key which seems to have evolved a mind of it's very own.

And the extra "a", and the fact that you always mis-spell it, and the fact that Grammar has two As and no Es.

And Really Intransigent Kirstenwannabecostingthecwxithenatwestseries is more accurate.

 

[Rik]

piece of software that needs returning to the Source ASAP.

Seems the Grammar Police are getting on a bit. Surely, if you are taking the harsh view on grammar, should that not read "piece of software which needs to return to the Source ASAP" or might I suggest a "piece of software which finds the need to return to the Source ASAP"?

Poor little "that" I'm afraid, in this context, translates to sloppy grammar. "Which" is used as a relative pronoun in this case, in order to explain exactly, the action the antecedent (in this case the piece of software) is about to take.

 

[Rik]

And the extra "a", and the fact that you always mis-spell it, and the fact that Grammar has two As and no Es.

No one is perfect :P

And Really Intransigent Kirstenwannabecostingthecwxithenatwestseries is more accurate.

One game doth not a career make or break.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Seems the Grammar Police are getting on a bit. Surely, if you are taking the harsh view on grammar, should that not read "piece of software which needs to return to the Source ASAP" or might I suggest a "piece of software which finds the need to return to the Source ASAP"?

Poor little "that" I'm afraid, in this context, translates to sloppy grammar. "Which" is used as a relative pronoun in this case, in order to explain exactly, the action the antecedent (in this case the piece of software) is about to take.

Seeing as I was not meaning it like that and using "returning" as a present participle in a passive sense, then no.

As for "that or which", my understanding is that "which" is used should the conjunction be leading to something supplementary to the initial part of the sentence, and "that" if the final part of the sentence is essential to the meaning of the whole sentence.

 

[Langeveldt]

Matrix = Excellent
Reloaded = OK
Revolutions = Crap

You know what I meant :P

Damn.. Ive yet to see Revolutions...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Damn.. Ive yet to see Revolutions...

Don't

 

[Rik]

Seeing as I was not meaning it like that and using "returning" as a present participle in a passive sense, then no.

As for "that or which", my understanding is that "which" is used should the conjunction be leading to something supplementary to the initial part of the sentence, and "that" if the final part of the sentence is essential to the meaning of the whole sentence.

The use of "that" is generally accepted, although "which" is generally encouraged. Just an example of slipping standards.

In the phrase: "piece of software that needs returning to the Source ASAP", the problem is mainly in the lack of a joining word between "needs" and "returning" such as "to" and no explination as to why "needs" or "return" are used. "Software that needs returning" would be acceptable if it was describing the software's need to return, but with "to the scene ASAP" after "return" it hints towards the author taking the view that the piece of software needs to return to the scene. Without any explination as to why, and the lack of a joining word, the sentance is almost cut into two halves and also the view that the piece of software actually has the need to return to the scene, rather than the opinion that it might want to, can be taken.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You are missing the point entirely

It is a passive sentence!

The software is not voluntarily returning, it is being forcefully returned.

Oh, and "explaination" has an A in it.

 

[Rik]

You are missing the point entirely

It is a passive sentence!

The software is not voluntarily returning, it is being forcefully returned.

Oh, and "explaination" has an A in it.

Oh so you are saying there is a need for the piece of software to return to the scene? The way in which it was written and the post it was replying to gave it the context that the piece of software wanted to return to the scene, ie. I am the piece of software and keep feeling the need to return to this thread. Wouldn't it be a bit odd if I was the piece of software and I was being forced to return every time? Or maybe Smith is actually forced to appear and attack rebels because of it's programming? But if I remember correctly Smith is now a rogue program and rarely follows rules.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Basically, the point was, your code is corrupt, and you need deleting.

It was character assassination

 

[Rik]

Basically, the point was, your code is corrupt, and you need deleting.

It was character assassination

Or bad programming :P

 

[marc71178]

Not having a go at him. If you want to categorise my post it was a post bringing Marc's constant baseless tirades against Richard to other people's attention.

So how come you single me out, when I am only one of a number of people who disagree then?

 

[Rik]

So how come you single me out, when I am only one of a number of people who disagree then?

I single you out because you are the one who is allways there, and when Richard has a point that people understand, you are still there. If you believe it is personal then you are very much mistaken. How can it be personal when I don't even know who you are?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well this one's making around as much progress as Devon Malcolm is towards 10,000 Test Runs.

Bye Bye.