Talk about anything but keep it polite and reasonably clean.
-
flash_uk
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
- Location: London
Post
by flash_uk » 23:01 Mon 05 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:48 Mon 05 Jun 2017
On Android using the Google Keyboard, switch to number input (hit the ?123 button) then hold down the hyphen to see other options.
Any tips for iOS?
Edit: Ah. Same thing works on iOS! Many thanks!
-
Glenn E.
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3368
- Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
- Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Post
by Glenn E. » 16:55 Tue 06 Jun 2017
flash_uk wrote: ↑23:01 Mon 05 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:48 Mon 05 Jun 2017
On Android using the Google Keyboard, switch to number input (hit the ?123 button) then hold down the hyphen to see other options.
Any tips for iOS?

Get a new phone?

Glenn Elliott
-
Glenn E.
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3368
- Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
- Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Post
by Glenn E. » 22:00 Wed 14 Jun 2017
Andy Velebil wrote: ↑21:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017
The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters).
Math is hard.

Glenn Elliott
-
Andy Velebil
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2562
- Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
-
Contact:
Post
by Andy Velebil » 22:08 Wed 14 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote:Andy Velebil wrote: ↑21:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017
The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters).
Math is hard.

Hahha. One too many zeros on that. Damn phone. 1,300 meters. That better?
And the peaks behind that are higher. Though I think Eric in Colorado has us all beat at over 10,000 foot peaks there. Though I have skied at about 13,000 feet in Telluride Colorado and breathing during exertion gets a bit tougher at that elevation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Glenn E.
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3368
- Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
- Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Post
by Glenn E. » 05:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Mt. Rainier is 14,411.
I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.
Glenn Elliott
-
PhilW
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2739
- Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
- Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Post
by PhilW » 08:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑05:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Mt. Rainier is 14,411.
I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.
That's nothing; when I was a lad our parents would make my brother and I go t'top of Mount Everest before breakfast, with no Oxygen, or ice axes - or shoes; have a boxing match on the summit and t'loser had to carry t'winner back down while singing God save the Queen, and if we didn't do it quick enough they made us dig our own graves, bury ourselves, and then they would dance on our graves singing Hallelujah. TPF members of today think they have it tough, pah!
-
Old Bridge
- Warre’s Traditional LBV
- Posts: 338
- Joined: 11:33 Thu 22 Dec 2016
- Location: Telemark, Norway
Post
by Old Bridge » 09:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017
PhilW wrote: ↑08:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑05:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Mt. Rainier is 14,411.
I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.
That's nothing; when I was a lad our parents would make my brother and I go t'top of Mount Everest before breakfast, with no Oxygen, or ice axes - or shoes; have a boxing match on the summit and t'loser had to carry t'winner back down while singing God save the Queen, and if we didn't do it quick enough they made us dig our own graves, bury ourselves, and then they would dance on our graves singing Hallelujah. TPF members of today think they have it tough, pah!
Brilliant!!
MP come alive again.
-
Andy Velebil
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2562
- Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
-
Contact:
Post
by Andy Velebil » 15:17 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Hahahah!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 21:58 Thu 29 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑05:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017
skied at 12,000' in Colorado
Phil’s reprimand was good, and, generously, he even left an error for others to spot. In a thread entitled ‘Apostrophe crimes’ everybody will have noticed Glenn’s incorrect use of a straight single quote (“'”, U+0027) rather than the prime symbol (“
′”, U+2032). Tut tut.
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 14:37 Fri 01 Sep 2017
jdaw1 wrote: ↑20:31 Thu 31 Aug 2017
Thank you
I confess to the omission of a terminating full stop.
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 00:31 Sat 13 Jan 2018
-
flash_uk
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
- Location: London
Post
by flash_uk » 15:05 Sat 13 Jan 2018
I suspect many others are thinking exactly what I'm thinking after seeing this.
-
John Owlett
- Cockburn’s Special Reserve
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 23:26 Wed 04 Dec 2013
- Location: Southampton, UK
Post
by John Owlett » 16:25 Sat 13 Jan 2018
Remarkable attention to detail: I have a Casio digital watch exactly like that one.
-
flash_uk
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
- Location: London
Post
by flash_uk » 20:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018
idj123 wrote: ↑18:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018
Yes please! Does OBV count as an 'awful shipper's?
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 15:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018
flash_uk wrote: ↑20:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018
idj123 wrote: ↑18:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018
Yes please! Does OBV count as an 'awful shipper's?
Flash is being hard. In
the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original, whilst recognising that the new grammatical context required a singular. It was done clumsily, but I would not have rebuked this — indeed, didn’t.
Maybe I’m just becoming gentle in my dotage.
-
idj123
- Warre’s Otima 20 year old Tawny
- Posts: 721
- Joined: 20:54 Tue 13 Nov 2012
Post
by idj123 » 15:01 Sun 11 Mar 2018
This was typographical rather than grammatical with the second quotation mark inadvertently being inserted before the 's' rather than after and thus becoming an unintentional apostrophe.
-
flash_uk
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
- Location: London
Post
by flash_uk » 17:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018
I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 23:06 Sun 11 Mar 2018
flash_uk wrote: ↑17:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018
I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑15:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018
In
the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original
-
flash_uk
- Dow 1980
- Posts: 2868
- Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
- Location: London
Post
by flash_uk » 00:01 Mon 12 Mar 2018
jdaw1 wrote: ↑23:06 Sun 11 Mar 2018
flash_uk wrote: ↑17:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018
I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑15:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018
In
the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original
Yes "no awful shippers" in the first post, but if one then discusses a single bottle, the question would be is it "an awful shipper". Can't have "an awful shippers".
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 00:23 Mon 12 Mar 2018
He wanted to quote my original.
Yes, I agree, the sentence could have tortured a bit (“would OBV breach “no awful shippers”?”), but I sufficiently sympathetic to the mixed pluralisation from the quotation.
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 22:50 Sat 31 Mar 2018
It is very unlikely that this is correct:

-
AHB
- Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
- Posts: 11991
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Post
by AHB » 12:59 Tue 03 Apr 2018
I think this is debateable. I would have said " readers' " but each of the many true stories would have come from a single individual reader. If that was the case, would the use have been acceptable?
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 23:12 Tue 03 Apr 2018
AHB wrote: ↑12:59 Tue 03 Apr 2018
I think this is debateable. I would have said " readers' " but each of the many true stories would have come from a single individual reader. If that was the case, would the use have been acceptable?
Unless a single reader supplied
all the stories, it’s wrong. Compare: the boys’ oranges: each boy allocated on orange, still, multiple boys.
Consistent with:
jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:50 Sat 31 Mar 2018
It is very unlikely that this is correct
-
jdaw1
- Cockburn 1900
- Posts: 20752
- Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
- Location: London
-
Contact:
Post
by jdaw1 » 16:03 Sat 28 Jul 2018
In
The Economist!
