SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: The Philosopher who wrote (3069)7/1/1999 3:45:00 PM
From: jbe  Respond to of 4711
 
Okay, now take me on.

Don't feel like it, Christopher. <g> As I said, I had no stake in the small "u," no ideological justification for it, as it were. It is often used in such cases, but, as you point out, it probably shouldn't be.

Joan



To: The Philosopher who wrote (3069)7/1/1999 4:13:00 PM
From: B.C.  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4711
 
I was just about to type a discourse on the capital U and why it is the correct usage in this context when I read your post.

"Affect" and "effect" are the ones I can never get right when in a pinch!




To: The Philosopher who wrote (3069)7/1/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: Janice Shell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4711
 
Hey, Chris, never mind: I wanna know whether being "annoying" is actionable.

Also want to know what "tortuous interference" is? I mean, even given, lol, a proper spelling, um, "interference" with what? Is "interference" illegal, in the extremely broad sense suggested by the "complaint" spammed, oops, alleged, in the AZNT 8K, and if so, how so?

Puzzled...