RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
October 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 23, 2008 at 5:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(October 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:(October 22, 2008 at 6:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Pedant!
I agree with you BTW but you're still a pedant
Kyu
Lol seriously?
EDIT: Lol i checked the defintion and I'd agree I am a bit pedantic lol, I thought pedantic was more negative than the defintion seems to be lol.
I suppose it is but then most things can be used in that way with the "proper" inflexion (for example you can say someone's good but said in the "right" way it can mean something else entirely) ... when I said that to you it was meant as a kind of jokey insult especially since I know I can be much the same (people who don't know the difference between "effect" and "affect" for example drive me up the wall). Anyway, there was no criticism intended mate
Kyu
That's what I suspected, just checking, being 'pedantic' again.
I can think I've heard some people say Dawkins is pedantic, so I guess the whole thing is about whether you think the details are important, I mean they're not always insignificant. For example when a very long equation is only slightly wrong, to correct it certainly isn't pedantic, obviously because people consider it important.
Or am I just being stupid now? If so, sorry.
