On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote
> > > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of
> > > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices.
> >
> > So what e
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote
> > > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of
> > > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices.
> >
> > So what
>> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote
> > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of
> > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices.
>
> So what exactly is "open for interpretation
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > IOW, if I only mark "--1--", then my vote is as good as nothing, since I
This vote is defined to declare that item 3 dominates all other items.
Items not marked are declared by the voter as
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Debatable. Unmarked votes can also be counted as "equally last", so
> that "--1--" count is the same as "22122". The constitution is unclear
> on this (as well as many other things), which is why AJ, Buddha Buck,
> Raul, and a coupl
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 06:27:14PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> with the apostrophe).
And without the apostrophe, how would you unambiguously talk about
several as?
>> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote
> > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of
> > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices.
>
> So what exactly is "open for interpretatio
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > IOW, if I only mark "--1--", then my vote is as good as nothing, since I
This vote is defined to declare that item 3 dominates all other items.
Items not marked are declared by the voter as
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Debatable. Unmarked votes can also be counted as "equally last", so
> that "--1--" count is the same as "22122". The constitution is unclear
> on this (as well as many other things), which is why AJ, Buddha Buck,
> Raul, and a coup
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:15:53PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote:
> > is prefered to Choice #2: Anand Kumria (165-31)
>
> "Preferred" has two r's.
I'd think so, too, but some people seem to say "canceled" instead of
"cancelled"...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 06:27:14PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> with the apostrophe).
And without the apostrophe, how would you unambiguously talk about
several as?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:38:18AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> > practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> > with the apostrophe).
> >
> > I wonder if
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:15:53PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote:
> > is prefered to Choice #2: Anand Kumria (165-31)
>
> "Preferred" has two r's.
I'd think so, too, but some people seem to say "canceled" instead of
"cancelled"...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> with the apostrophe).
>
> I wonder if this applies to British/Australian English as well.
The older rule was to put in m
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 04:36:44PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
> announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
Actually, I was genuinely curious.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:36:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And which grammatical rule suggests the apostrophes?
> It's the standard rule for pluralizing single lower-case letters.
>
> Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed; 6.9--10:
Hmm, OK.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:38:18AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> > practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> > with the apostrophe).
> >
> > I wonder i
>> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > IOW, if I only mark "--1--", then my vote is as good as nothing, since I
> > made no preference of one over the other. So not specifying a rank in
> > the order pretty much alleviates that choice in the tally for that
> > particular vote.
>
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:47:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, voting is over, Ben Collins is our new leader.
>
> I'm literally overwhelmed.
Congratulations! Keep up the good work.
Thanks,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail:
Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
> announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
"C'mon people, it's getting a bit OT to argue about the grammar of the
announcement, isn't it? (as long as the numbers are co
Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
Glenn
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And which grammatical rule suggests the apostrophes?
It's the standard rule for pluralizing single lower-case letters.
Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed; 6.9--10:
6.9: So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple
letters used a
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:16:16PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:40:56PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote:
> > Only the fool would take trouble to verify that his sentence was
> > composed of ten a's, three b's, four c's, four d's, forty-six e's,
> > sixteen f's, four g's,
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, OK. A real reference. I'd always assumed it was just poor
> practice (given that the general population has serious trouble
> with the apostrophe).
>
> I wonder if this applies to British/Australian English as well.
The older rule was to put in
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:40:56PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote:
> Only the fool would take trouble to verify that his sentence was
> composed of ten a's, three b's, four c's, four d's, forty-six e's,
> sixteen f's, four g's, thirteen h's, fifteen i's, two k's, nine l's,
> four m's, twenty-five n's, tw
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 04:36:44PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Cmon people, its getting a bit OT to argue about the grammer of the
> announcment isnt it (as long as the numbers are correct).
Actually, I was genuinely curious.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:36:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And which grammatical rule suggests the apostrophes?
> It's the standard rule for pluralizing single lower-case letters.
>
> Chicago Manual of Style, 13th ed; 6.9--10:
Hmm, OK
27 matches
Mail list logo
