So did I, then I grew out of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[i suspect that ] You[']r[e] older th[a]n me [, then].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That explains your grasp of grammar, then.

...

I still blame the PC for ruining computer gaming and killing the Commodore Amiga market, mass producing simple, braindead, dumbed down games compared to the Amiga, not to mention the awful controls and hardware limitations...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"PC" stands for Personal Computer, which does not exclude any computer format, despite the current ubiquity of the IBM PC (which were originally "MS DOS compatible"), so you can have your cake and eat it too. "PC" is just as much about Amigas as it is the Apple //e and the Commodore 64 ().

Acorn Electron for ever!!!!

So did I, then I grew out of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[i suspect that ] You[']r[e] older th[a]n me [, then].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That explains your grasp of grammar, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, wouldn't his post indicate a poor grasp of spelling? In fact, your version of the sentence changed kyle's post from a statement of fact to a suspicion by adding in an extra clause, namely, "I suspect that". Indeed, by editing the grammar of the sentence and apparently seeming to correct it while instead changing the meaning of the sentence, would that not suggest a poor grasp of grammar on your own part? "

 

In proper English, kotorkyle's statement would simply be "You are older than me", not "I suspect that you're older than me, then."

 

EDIT: Oh, and you kept "you're" capitalised, puting a capital letter in the middle of a sentence for something other than a proper noun. Tut tut.

Edited October 28, 200520 yr by Reveilled

Suspicion doubt guilt.... all shall be as we want it to...

 

I <3 my PC

<3 is a heart?? i always thought it was a nutsack

nope <3 is

Infidels.

So did I, then I grew out of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[i suspect that ] You[']r[e] older th[a]n me [, then].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That explains your grasp of grammar, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, wouldn't his post indicate a poor grasp of spelling? In fact, your version of the sentence changed kyle's post from a statement of fact to a suspicion by adding in an extra clause, namely, "I suspect that". Indeed, by editing the grammar of the sentence and apparently seeming to correct it while instead changing the meaning of the sentence, would that not suggest a poor grasp of grammar on your own part? "

 

In proper English, kotorkyle's statement would simply be "You are older than me", not "I suspect that you're older than me, then."

 

EDIT: Oh, and you kept "you're" capitalised, puting a capital letter in the middle of a sentence for something other than a proper noun. Tut tut.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. grammar is [t]he study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences ... (etcetra), so No;
   
2. kotorkyle implicitly posits the hypothesis that Gabrielle is more senior, but does not directly affirm this to be a fact, either known to, or confirmed by, him (her);
   my exterpolation of the original statement may be regarded as editing (for sure), but it was done within the spirit of clarification and not for any malevolent purposes, so it is at worst artistic licence and in no way poor grammar;
   
3. I admit that leaving the capitalised Y was a more idiosyncratic grammatical interpretation; however I would justify my indulgence by citing the obvious benefit of presenting the original phrase in its entirety, as well as my additional predicate (quoth you, above) to indicate:
   • my interpretation
     
   • the fact that it was my interpretation
     
   • the range and limits of my editing
     

Of course replacing the Y with [y] would have been technically more in keeping with accepted grammatical idiom, it would have lost the above nuances.

Age has nothing to do with the ability to speak/write correctly. You could be forty and write and spell like a child.

So did I, then I grew out of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[i suspect that ] You[']r[e] older th[a]n me [, then].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That explains your grasp of grammar, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, wouldn't his post indicate a poor grasp of spelling? In fact, your version of the sentence changed kyle's post from a statement of fact to a suspicion by adding in an extra clause, namely, "I suspect that". Indeed, by editing the grammar of the sentence and apparently seeming to correct it while instead changing the meaning of the sentence, would that not suggest a poor grasp of grammar on your own part? "

 

In proper English, kotorkyle's statement would simply be "You are older than me", not "I suspect that you're older than me, then."

 

EDIT: Oh, and you kept "you're" capitalised, puting a capital letter in the middle of a sentence for something other than a proper noun. Tut tut.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[*]grammar is [t]he study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences ... (etcetra), so No;

 

Alright, I suppose you get this one.

 

[*]kotorkyle implicitly posits the hypothesis that Gabrielle is more senior, but does not directly affirm this to be a fact, either known to, or confirmed by, him (her);

my exterpolation of the original statement may be regarded as editing (for sure), but it was done within the spirit of clarification and not for any malevolent purposes, so it is at worst artistic licence and in no way poor grammar;

 

No, it's still poor grammar. You changed the sentence from an assertion about the relative ages of kotorkyle and gabrielle to an assertion about the presence of a suspicion about the relative ages of the two. The first makes an assertion about the ages, the second raises a possibility. Even if it's artistic liscence, and even if it was not done for any malevolant purposes, the meaning of the sentence has still been changed, thus there has been a change, rather than a correction, in the grammar.

Oh no its the light/colour thread all over again!!

I see things in black and white.

Being colorblind can be tough,

I high excruciatingly high standards for myslef...

:D

I high excruciatingly high standards for myslef...

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bless you for finding that. :D

I high excruciatingly high standards for myslef...

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bless you for finding that. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe he was drunk when he posted that. "

 

Or maybe it wasn't posted by him and it's a fake quote!

Edited October 29, 200520 yr by Deraldin

Oh no its the light/colour thread all over again!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh god, it is, isn't it?

 

In fact, Meta, forget I said anything. I'm not that eager to have this argument again.

Oh no its the light/colour thread all over again!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, that thread was fun! I enjoyed reading that one.

Oh no its the light/colour thread all over again!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, that thread was fun! I enjoyed reading that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bleuch. First we'd argue over one word, then we'd argue over a word in the definition, then a word in that word's definition. Urgh. If it hadn't finished when it did, Meta and I would probably have been arguing in Proto-Indo-European eventually.

kotorkyle implicitly posits the hypothesis that Gabrielle is more senior, but does not directly affirm this to be a fact, either known to, or confirmed by, him (her);

my exterpolation of the original statement may be regarded as editing (for sure), but it was done within the spirit of clarification and not for any malevolent purposes, so it is at worst artistic licence and in no way poor grammar;

No, it's still poor grammar. You changed the sentence from an assertion about the relative ages of kotorkyle and gabrielle to an assertion about the presence of a suspicion about the relative ages of the two. The first makes an assertion about the ages, the second raises a possibility. Even if it's artistic licence, and even if it was not done for any malevolent purposes, the meaning of the sentence has still been changed, thus there has been a change, rather than a correction, in the grammar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it is completely outside the boundaries of grammar. It is within editorial licence for the reader to interpret as they will. In fact, the structure of my correction not only presents a fair and clear interpretation, it also grants the reader the immediate power of recognising what is edit and what is the original statement.

 

To wit, the correction was helping to state what kotorkyle meant to say, even though poor grammar and eloquence prevented such communication.

Bleuch.  First we'd argue over one word, then we'd argue over a word in the definition, then a word in that word's definition.  Urgh.  If it hadn't finished when it did, Meta and I would probably have been arguing in Proto-Indo-European eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah but that was part of the fun! Watching you two nit pick every little thing in each others posts.

I high excruciatingly high standards for myslef...

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bless you for finding that. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good on you for finding that! I don't let too many mistakes slip past me ... (... then again I remember I was posting without the luxury of revising my posts as I had a pressing time constraint, but that smacks of an excuse and I am not so vainglorious that I cannot admit to mistakes).

 

No errors, mind you, just mistakes. :D

PC, although the Sega Genesis/Megadrive was number one for me for a long time.

 

 

EDIT: Why is the Genesis/Megadrive not in this poll? If the SNES is in it, the Genesis/Megadrive deserves to be in it too.

Edited October 29, 200520 yr by Lancer

Played it on the GC. Wouldnt happen to know of any significant differences would you ?

 

Definately qualifies as fantastic anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, there's supposed to be a 5 hour storyline where you get to play as Ada, the girl in the red dress. I am sure you remember her.. and her cleavage.. and long legs..

 

Also, new weapons, new costumes for the main characters and some other stuff. Nothing worth paying an extra $50 for. Unless you're made of money.

Where's the Atari 2600?