World-Designs-Forum

World-Designs-Forum (http://www.world-designs.co.uk/forum/index.php)
-   News (http://www.world-designs.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   New member's (http://www.world-designs.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6107)

bob orbell 1st May 2011 08:13 AM

New member's
 
Hello all moderators and admin. how about a section dedicated to new members to introduce themselves and tell who they are, what they do, their interests etc. It seems to work well on another forum that I am a member of, and may just break the ice, I remember that I was a little unshure on my first post. BOB

Richard 1st May 2011 12:44 PM

Re: New member's
 
Yes could be a good idea Bob, it would certainly be nice if new members at least said a quick hello and told us what their hifi interests were etc, but I don't see a problem if they have an interest but are too shy to post, and wouldn't want to discourage anyone :)

What do others reckon?

colin.hepburn 1st May 2011 01:33 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 73545)
Yes could be a good idea Bob, it would certainly be nice if new members at least said a quick hello and told us what their hifi interests were etc, but I don't see a problem if they have an interest but are too shy to post, and wouldn't want to discourage anyone :)

What do others reckon?

Yep I think it could be helpfully as well
It would be good for new member to identify if there are trade or technically qualified for example or just a valve head or whatever
as far as being too shy to post, I can’t really comment on this one as I was once too shy worried about how I would be perceived :eek: with my dyslexic problems :)

John Caswell 1st May 2011 04:46 PM

Re: New member's
 
Hi all,
Yes I go along with this wholeheartedly.
Things we must do are not only to encourage all new members but also try to help anyone that asks questions on any sort of related Hi Fi topic. Maybe we will be unable to answer them here, or won't want to, but at least we can give them some pointers.

John

Shane 1st May 2011 06:31 PM

Re: New member's
 
Good idea, but please don't go down the road of the other forum where they jump on every new poster insisting that they give their full life history as soon as they dare to make a posting. It should be optional.

bob orbell 1st May 2011 07:01 PM

Re: New member's
 
Good to get some feedback on this, I just feel that a quick (hello this is me and I am so and so) would be good for the forum and the new member, who ever they maybe. :)

bob orbell 2nd May 2011 10:58 AM

Re: New member's
 
Very good Richard should work well, :D errr, what if you don't like coffee:rolleyes:

Matthew Snell 3rd May 2011 10:48 AM

Re: New member's
 
I think I agree with everyone! We should truly encourage new members to "come out of their shell" - but really don't want to pressurise them either. There is a social aspect to the forum, which is great, and I think the Coffee Bar might be the place for this. (Thank you Richard for setting it up.) Perhaps we could suggest this to new members in their "welcome" email...? (If I can work out how to edit it...)

Matthew

John Caswell 3rd May 2011 05:50 PM

Re: New member's
 
Hi all,
Bob Orbell wrote "Very good Richard should work well, errr, what if you don't like coffee"
Well as it is past 09:00 somewhere in the world a large Armagnac is my choice.
And just to be pedantic it is "New members and not new member's:D

John

pre65 3rd May 2011 06:09 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Caswell (Post 73584)
And just to be pedantic it is "New members and not new member's:D

John

Every forum should have at least one pedant.:D

John Caswell 3rd May 2011 08:01 PM

Re: New member's
 
Thankyou.
How I hate people like me:D

John

Baggy Trousers 7th May 2011 05:32 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pre65 (Post 73586)
Every forum should have at least one pedant.:D

I bags being another.

However, I am relieved to have my curiosity assuaged - I have been much exercised over whatever it was that a new member possessed. I did entertain a hope that it might include a lawnmower but I suspect I shall have to continue in my disappointment that you chaps continue to bang on about HiFi or something similarly arcane. Really should broaden the old horizons, what?

:cool:Baggo.

PS The 6550 continues to provide wonderful reliability and music.

Matthew Snell 9th May 2011 11:16 AM

Re: New member's
 
Can I make a suggestion? A new section on the forum devoted entirely to the apostophe! I understand there are moves afoot to get rid of it altogether. Me, I rather like the things and would rather get rid of all the grocer's.

Matthew

P.S. My 6550 continues to please too - nice to hear of another fan.

andrew ivimey 9th May 2011 02:54 PM

Re: New member's
 
- get rid of all the grocer's what!? ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek

Do you mean you want to get rid of all the grocers (who often use the apostrophe badly or you want to get rid of all the gorcer's misuse of the apostrophe?

confused of Bedford

Richard 9th May 2011 03:57 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew ivimey (Post 73615)
- get rid of all the grocer's what!? ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek ek

Do you mean you want to get rid of all the grocers (who often use the apostrophe badly or you want to get rid of all the gorcer's misuse of the apostrophe?

confused of Bedford

yep get rid of all the gorcer's too and the pendant's :D

andrew ivimey 9th May 2011 04:11 PM

Re: New member's
 
gorcers and pendants - whatever next !!

How wrong would it be if the English reading public just forgot the apostrophe? Would there be any more or any less confusion :-)

There are clearly typos, poor spelling and poor grammar - which is worst? It only matters if it makes the intended meaning less clear?

After that I suppose it is just a larfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.

Richard 10th May 2011 01:38 PM

Re: New member's
 
Yes English is a confusing language. I find myself saying lang-u-age as I type. It would be easier to type langwige, err, but should that be langwich or langwidge or lankwitch or... Multiply that problem by thousands and it starts to make sense to have defined spellinks to at least try and adhear to :D

colin.hepburn 10th May 2011 02:16 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 73621)
Yes English is a confusing language. I find myself saying lang-u-age as I type. It would be easier to type langwige, err, but should that be langwich or langwidge or lankwitch or... Multiply that problem by thousands and it starts to make sense to have defined spellings to at least try and adhear to :D

Ahh not if you are Dyslexic like me any spellings are a nightmare even with a spell-checker as it give you both UK and US versions of the words or something totally different :eek::D

andrew ivimey 10th May 2011 03:37 PM

Re: New member's
 
So, perhaps spelling doesn't matter half as much as poor grammar.

With spelling the meaning is still (usually) there even if the words are mispelled. Richard, for example, gives us some examples and I suggest it is actually quite difficult to mispell in a way that preserves as easily accessible meaning as when the text is spelled correctly but this may not always be true. 'Textese' (used with mobile phones) is catching on, much to my regret, and I wonder how many assignations never happen because Romeo was 'l8 4 a d8' with his Juliet.

A writer may have difficulty in converying meaning i.e. what the writer intends to say, depending on ability to express meaning clearly and concisely. Potentially there is fear and dreadful ambiguity of the reader's interpretation or the writer's (use of the apostrophe here shows that the reader knows there is only one writer and one reader; the text belongs to the writer and the interpretation belongs to the reader. No apostrophes would confuse as this could then mean many writers of one text uh! nonsense and many readers of this text - possible. We need a context too, then.) text too makes me wonder how we ever make much sense to each other! - maybe we don't ;-)

But to use grammar incorrectly, as an example, the apostrophe, can make for some serious misunderstandings - easy to make but also easy not to do so, I would assert.

' CD's ' is as bad as ' carrot's'. Though in the former the apostrophe is simply unecessary and in the latter it makes me wonder what a carrot can own - bizarre!

'The people's princess' may be an oxymoron but is grammatically correct. Mind you, 'colourless green thoughts sleep furiously' is grammatically correct too, and arguably makes even less sense.

I could go on but I don't think anyone is still awake and those that are probably would rather I talked about the valve's possibilities - You see, it doesn't work. ;-) ;-)

Richard 10th May 2011 04:51 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

text too makes me wonder how we ever make much sense to each other! - maybe we don't ;-)
Language is clumsy and all the bolt ons and tools have been introduced to fine tune it and convey the message (whatever it is) more clearly.

Quote:

' CD's ' is as bad as ' carrot's'. Though in the former the apostrophe is simply unecessary and in the latter it makes me wonder what a carrot can own - bizarre!
Ah, don't forget the apostrophe is also used in place of missing letters to enable us to more nearly write as we speak. Thus CD's might be correct if it is meant Compact Disks, or should it then be C'D's? There's one for the ultimate pendant competition I fink :D

Shane 10th May 2011 05:13 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 73626)
Language is clumsy and all the bolt ons and tools have been introduced to fine tune it and convey the message (whatever it is) more clearly.

Ah, don't forget the apostrophe is also used in place of missing letters to enable us to more nearly write as we speak. Thus CD's might be correct if it is meant Compact Disks, or should it then be C'D's? There's one for the ultimate pendant competition I fink :D

CD's is only correct if discussing something belonging to a CD, eg "the CD's case is broken".

Strictly speaking, since CD is an abbreviation it should be C.D. Does the plural then become C.D.s and the possessive C.D.'s?

andrew ivimey 10th May 2011 05:52 PM

Re: New member's
 
I don't think language is at all clumsy. I think the misuse of language is down to the way it is used by we, the people. Language is not as simple as, say, using a screwdriver but there are rules and, when applied, work well.

I fully realise the job of the apostrophe to denote a missing letter(s) but originally the missing letter was also involved in the possessive nature of the thing.

e.g.

Kinges sweord - the sword of the king. (no one puts in an apostrophe in the word sweord (medieval English).

Now as for CDs - well that is how it should be. There is no need even to use C.D.s. The abbreviation C.D. is also correct however just that we can't be bothered and the sense of the thing, the 'CD' or the CDs are preserved. We should be happy that it is actually very simple - Hooray for the apostrophe - it is easy to apply.

Richard 10th May 2011 06:24 PM

Re: New member's
 
Well it may not be clumsy in the hands of Emily Bronte but I can assure you it is in mine :D

Ask yourself how many times you've been misunderstood on a bb f'rinstance. Facts are quite easy to convey but emotion such as humour is not unless it's very obvious I suppose. Hence the smilies are all to do with emotion rather than being pictures of circuits, valves, girls, cars or liquorice allsorts.

Shane is now running a close second in the Ultimate Pendant competition :D

andrew ivimey 10th May 2011 06:53 PM

Re: New member's
 
If I am misunderstood, I suggest it is because the reader is incapable, for whatever reason (and I can think of several), of understanding well crafted and often, even beautiful, prose.

Humour is indeed very difficult to convey on a BB and it helps enormously if the reader has variously A) got drunk with B) slept with C) had children by, with or from D) known well for several decades and / or perhaps a few other, shared conditions with the writer. Even then the whole thing can still go wrong because of a misplaced comma here, the wanton overuse of the semi-colon and indeed the horrible apostrophe being applied where only a slab of melting butter should - on the carrots!

It is a little appreciated fact that facts are not (always) easy to convey - refer to the use of the apostrophe again. We could here be talking about carrots and if we use carrot's this requires that the carrots own something. The gorcer's carrots have long green leaves. I would concede but can one really apply the concept ownership to a popuar and much eaten vegetable that belongs to the parsley family and 'grows in gardens and in the wild all over the world'? - note: I couldn't resist the last bit in parentheses because there is a particular piece of software used to verify the individual patient's prescription of a hearing aid that uses a (very long) sentence about 'The Carrot' in order to derive a more accurate 'real ear' measurement. oooo-er.

Now in answer to my rhetorical question above. Of course a thing can have ownership. The dog's testicles - not a thing? okay. The boat's crew, and so on. But if I hadn't persevered I wouldn't have continued to bore you, would I!?

Shane 10th May 2011 07:49 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 73629)
Well it may not be clumsy in the hands of Emily Bronte but I can assure you it is in mine :D

Ask yourself how many times you've been misunderstood on a bb f'rinstance. Facts are quite easy to convey but emotion such as humour is not unless it's very obvious I suppose. Hence the smilies are all to do with emotion rather than being pictures of circuits, valves, girls, cars or liquorice allsorts.

Shane is now running a close second in the Ultimate Pendant competition :D

That would make me the Penultimate Pedant. I rather like that.

Shane 10th May 2011 07:53 PM

Re: New member's
 
Although the Ultimate Pedant would excoriate me for using unnecessary capital letters, and now for using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. I offer the defence of poetic license.

And if all this doesn't deter new members, then nothing will.

andrew ivimey 10th May 2011 08:18 PM

Re: New member's
 
ooooooooooooo I don't mind the capital letters in this example!

A conjunction, perhaps and I think poets do it all the time (at the beginning of a sentence, well okay line/verse ...

'But at my back I hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near'

If we go on like this Lynne Truss might join up! Although that would be a first she might also point out that such use of 'although' is perfectly all right at the beginning of a sentence as its use is as a discourse connective so, of course, is acceptable.

maybe.

Now the pain in all the diodes down my left side is beginning to get me down.

Matthew Snell 11th May 2011 10:30 AM

Re: New member's
 
I think you'll find that a "C'D's" is probably a model in Citroen's range. If it wasn't before, it will be soon.

Loving all this grammar stuff. Does anyone remember this old chestnut? You have to try to punctuate the following sentence:

Richard where Bob had had had had had had had had had had had the examiner's approval.

(And yes, it can be done!)

I've done the apostrophe for you to give you a head start.

andrew ivimey 11th May 2011 10:43 AM

Re: New member's
 
I can see point of two (or three) hads but no, surely its just verbiage! The examiner should be shot! The apostrophe is - and always should be - easy :-)

oh all right then .... one possibility ...

'Richard! (exclamation mark or comma) where Bob had (could use semi-colon here for the list but its just daft!) 'had had had had had had had had' had had the examainer's approval'.

I doubt if Richard was still listening.

pre65 11th May 2011 10:53 AM

Re: New member's
 
How about

Richard, where Bob had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.:)

Is it any wonder that so many people don't bother with grammar ?

And to the pedants, I know there should not be a gap between the question mark and the letter before, but that's my way, it looks better.:D

Stratmangler 11th May 2011 11:02 AM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Snell (Post 73638)
I think you'll find that a "C'D's" is probably a model in Citroen's range. If it wasn't before, it will be soon.

Loving all this grammar stuff. Does anyone remember this old chestnut? You have to try to punctuate the following sentence:

Richard where Bob had had had had had had had had had had had the examiner's approval.

(And yes, it can be done!)

I've done the apostrophe for you to give you a head start.

I can manage four hads.

Richard, where Bob had had, had had the examiner's approval.

However, the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.

Chris :)

andrew ivimey 11th May 2011 11:40 AM

Re: New member's
 
Is that the one with Emmeline the modified dog?

an album that was released om quadrophonic sound!

Richard 11th May 2011 12:22 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew ivimey (Post 73643)
Is that the one with Emmeline the modified dog?

an album that was released om quadrophonic sound!

Heavens! Had to look that up,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINYjuPsHbo
Evelyn was Zappa, Wuthering Heights was Bronte who appears here by proxy,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChywYrwHBY

I can't get anywhere at all with the lads had dads thing. Does that get me third prize in the Penadnt competition? :D

Stratmangler 11th May 2011 01:12 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew ivimey (Post 73643)
Is that the one with Emmeline the modified dog?

an album that was released om quadrophonic sound!

Nah, Evelyn is on "One Size Fits All" - it's the track before San Ber'dino.

"Crux of the biscuit" is from the song about bromadrosis, otherwise known as Stink Foot, from the album Apostrophé.

Don't know about the quadrphonic sound thing - possibly, there was a lot of it around at the time.

Chris :)

Stratmangler 11th May 2011 01:15 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pre65 (Post 73641)
How about

Richard, where Bob had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.:)

Is it any wonder that so many people don't bother with grammar ?

And to the pedants, I know there should not be a gap between the question mark and the letter before, but that's my way, it looks better.:D

Didja google it ?

I agree about the question mark thing, too.

Chris :)

pre65 11th May 2011 01:21 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratmangler (Post 73647)
Didja google it ?

I agree about the question mark thing, too.

Chris :)


Did I google it ?

You saying I ain't clever ?

Corse I googled it.:D:D

andrew ivimey 11th May 2011 09:45 PM

Re: New member's
 
As I cycled home this afternoon I suddenly heard 'stinkfoot' > dun to dun too dunnnnn! remembered Fido and bromadrosis with python boot and realised my error!

had had bollocks ;-)

Baggy Trousers 12th May 2011 12:37 PM

Re: New member's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew ivimey (Post 73661)
As I cycled home this afternoon I suddenly heard 'stinkfoot' > dun to dun too dunnnnn! remembered Fido and bromadrosis with python boot and realised my error!

had had bollocks ;-)

Oh dear, Doc!

I was about to quote Fowler's Modern English Usage and why I disagree with several of his postulations contained therein (and which would be apposite in the context of this thread), when Fido and his galloping bromadosis shattered the spell that has attended quite the most entertaining and erudite conversation we have had for at least three years.

I long have subscribed to the view - note correctly-placed participle (!) - that a fundamental familiarity with Latin is a prerequisite for the proper usage of English; in the absence of this and the etymological grounding it provides, we have newsreaders and other semi-literates assaulting us with the likes of "vunerable" which they would never say if they had been wounded in Latin.

Of course, this wouldn't help with the Greeks' apostrophe. The Romans didn't have this useful grammatical device as they were much too concerned with their own genitive case. But (if I may start with a conjunction) they (the Romans) reveled in Bunga Bunga parties whilst the Hellenic tribes just ran up enormous national debts which we, it seems, are obliged to underwrite.

There is an excellent history entitled The Landships of Lincoln in which the author's prose is rendered all but unintelligible by the publisher's inclusion of only one apostrophe in the entire work. One has to re-read many sections in order to determine whether the "s" denotes plurality or possessiveness. I continue to wonder if this is some new typesetting fad or just another sad product of what passes for "education" in modern England. Shame, innit?

When I become planet dictator, everyone will be required to read Thomas Babington Macaulay. The standard of literacy then will be raised by an immeasurable degree and our lives will be enriched because of it; no longer will be be obliged compulsorily to dwell in a land where such standards as do exist seem to have been dictated by Millwall supporters.

Bis vivit qui bene vivit or sumfink like that John, know wot I mean like ?

:cool:Baggo

Philip - the question mark is for you!

Richard 12th May 2011 01:17 PM

Re: New member's
 
Hail Baggus, Pedant Supremus :)

I know little of Latin not a little Latin little of it. Whilst researching this post for the Latin for Supreme :D, after deciding to ignore whether or not Pedant is Latin, I came across a lovely thread here,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqu...,-5253,00.html

and read as far as here,
    • I have sat here engrossed for half an hour after an engaging debate at work today where some suggestions included 'conundri', 'conundrae', 'conundinomie', 'conundrinopigomipingus' - all of which I dismissed as being utterly uneducated guesses. I do not believe in the concept of overbearing pedants. Pedantry is a rare and beautiful thing these days and the mere sniff of it brings joy to my heart. So my hearty congrats to all of you who felt moved enough by this topic to contribute. By the way, the plural is conundrums. But I think conundra sounds posher.








      Katy Attwood, Manchester UK
    • A pedant is a piece of cloth that flies from the top of the mast of a ship whose captain has a stuffy nose. An overbearing pedant is a bigger piece flying above a smaller one.








      Stafford Smith, Seattle USA
    • I was enjoying the debate until all these Americans started joining in!








      Andy Malec, Ventura, California USA

Shane 12th May 2011 07:24 PM

Re: New member's
 
Ah Baggy; truly the pedant's pedant. I wonder though whether, having neatly avoided a split infinitive, you may be guilty of tautology.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright World Designs