Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Dayuhan who wrote (2232)	3/23/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Oh my god. If you were a nice person, you would have PM'd this person and 'splained it. (I actually did that once, explaining that he could em Jill and get it fixed, and the person was delighted!) Now how do you feel? Probably it's relevant that he was an acquaintance of mine, and not a native English speaker.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2232)	3/24/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 4711

Dat Buffett - he one bad G.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2232)	4/14/1999 1:26:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

I consider it uncool, indeed impolite, to criticize ordinary posters' grammar publicly (unless they make their mistakes on this thread -- in which case, all gloves are off). But it seems to me that thread founders should be subject to stricter requirements, and publicly pilloried when they mess up. Here is a founding post that REALLY takes the cake. And it is quite funny, probably unintentionally. Some of the responses are, too -- definitely intentionally. Enjoy -- right up to the crescendo! <gg> Talk : Coffee Shop: LET's TALK ABOUT DRUGS Folk's, After numerous failed attempts to kindle the attention of the SI crowd to collect worthwhile data to enhance the accuracy of my human indicator in neural networks, filtering the useful from the use less, I will make one more attempt to harvest attention and posting reaction to this threads theme. My statement: I sense that many posters on SI are under the influence of mind stimulants falling under the classification of drugs when posting. But on the other hand I might be myself under the influence having lost my normal senses and what I sense makes no sense to you at all. Consequently you would fell insecure if you want or should talk about drugs. Well then allow Eddy Blinker to throw you a line. As long as you deliver honest answers to the three questions below you can talk about whatever you want, after delivery. Your response: 1) What number would you call, if someone would say a generation of Americans in voting age are are on drugs? (regular users) 15, 25, 40 million, or which number ..... ? 2) For arguments sake you say X million. What %% of this X million would represent Democrats vi-sa-vis Republicans? 3) If you would be an attorney could you make a good case that a person's vote on election day, under the influence of drugs,is as valid as a persons vote who is not? I promise you, if this thread reaches 5000 postings I will post a crescendo which will surprise you all. IN A BIG WAY! Post away! Subject 27284