Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by wiscados View Post
    I hate multi-page articles. And so does Wind Li.

    Also, internal links should be a different colour than external one, ala wikipedia. That'd help alot.
    The links I agree with, but as for the multipage articles you can always choose the premium option. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NjgyNQ

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      The links I agree with, but as for the multipage articles you can always choose the premium option. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NjgyNQ
      Which is one of the reasons why I said the articles are posted for profit...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
        Which is one of the reasons why I said the articles are posted for profit...
        You might want to look at what profit means.

        Profit -The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting all expenses.

        Micheal is trying to make the site self supporting which is by definition non-profit.

        Non-profit - Operated as nearly as possible at cost; an organization not seeking profit and which does not disgorge excess income to its members, in the form of dividends or otherwise.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mattst88
          Reading some of your articles, I've noticed that you use the word had in many places where it's either clumsy or flat out wrong.
          Noticed it to, never minded it like most people reading good articles.

          I think of it as a signature that most people leave in their text (or code for the programmers here).


          Originally posted by mattst88
          You are right about one thing though. I should have used the private messaging system for this. With a bit of foresight, I would have realized that constructive criticism would degrade into this.
          Foresight eh? what you need is insight.

          Comment


          • #20
            Interesting thread.
            I would personally like to see some of the grammar and spelling improved - that's a general statement about any article on the Internet, and hence also applies here. I don't mean immediately of course, but it doesn't take that much effort for gradual improvements, and it would add to the overall quality of any article.
            Nobody's perfect. People posting here will make mistakes (myself included). It would be nice however, to see this thread turn into a discussion about how to improve the quality of the language in the articles rather than bashing each other.

            As a side note: an ass is a donkey. So is an asshole a hole filled with donkeys?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
              Dear Phoronix [...]
              I fail to see a problem with the aforementioned uses of 'had'. It might not fit your personal taste, but grammatically it is alright -- one doesn't _have_ to use the Past Simple in the cases you mentioned, it's only more frequent.

              Comment


              • #22
                One of the most idiotic threads I've ever read.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  One of the most idiotic threads I've ever read.
                  Honestly, it would be only half as much idiotic if posts like this and like the first 2 or 3 responses just wouldn't occur.
                  It was a good meant advice to improve the quality of phoronix articles and even if the thread starter was a bit overambitious, responses like that are just childish.

                  No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
                    Honestly, it would be only half as much idiotic if posts like this and like the first 2 or 3 responses just wouldn't occur.
                    It was a good meant advice to improve the quality of phoronix articles and even if the thread starter was a bit overambitious, responses like that are just childish.

                    No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.
                    It was just idiotic attempt to "hey, look how I am smart!". This thread is childish if you didn't notice. Better focus on technical issues than on grammar and similar things. Maybe my intention was to make this idiotic thread even more idiotic?

                    No offense here so don't start flaiming now, please, but just think about what you're writing.
                    Last edited by kraftman; 01-03-2009, 03:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      It was just idiotic attempt to "hey, look how I am smart!". This thread is childish if you didn't noticed.
                      No. Not the intention. Guess again.

                      Believe it or not, the intention was to improve the quality of the articles.

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Better focus on technical issues than on grammar and similar things.
                      See, here's what I don't understand. What you said is a fair argument.

                      Unfortunately, when making this argument you and others do it in such a way that destroys the thread. (Maybe try not being a jerk?)

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Maybe my intention was to make this idiotic thread even more idiotic?
                      You've succeeded! Congratulations!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                        No. Not the intention. Guess again.

                        Believe it or not, the intention was to improve the quality of the articles.
                        I believe in what I said before.

                        See, here's what I don't understand. What you said is a fair argument.

                        Unfortunately, when making this argument you and others do it in such a way that destroys the thread. (Maybe try not being a jerk?)
                        I think this thread is stupid so I'm answering in such a way. (Hey, but you are!)

                        You've succeeded! Congratulations!
                        It's mainly your merit.
                        Last edited by kraftman; 01-03-2009, 03:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hehe

                          I'm starting to like you.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                            Hehe

                            I'm starting to like you.
                            Yeah, I keep your thread alive

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X