"man wins breathalyzer source code in court case"yahuwcephAugust 17 2007, 21:37:54 UTC
there IS something wrong with this statement
seems to me whoever wrote it probably didn´t understand enough to write it using correct grammar or if it is correctly syntaxed, it is pretty ridiculous.
you seemed to understand it as "man wins court case due to/using breathalyzer source code", which is not quite what it says. What it is actually saying is that "man wins a breathalyzer source code in a court case". I have heard court cases suing for millions of $ and for justice to be done, but to fight in court to obtain a source code for a breathalyzer? Is that worth fighting for? And why?
she is smarter than you think. And you shouldn't have chosen to try to defend a poorly worded defective statement which is written by someone who didn't care enough to write it using his full wits about him, just to appear smart since you understood how a computerized breathalyzer reading can have a source code, because she will point out that though your tech knowledge may be polished, your english skills are pretty pitiful...
Re: "man wins breathalyzer source code in court case"calcnerd256August 17 2007, 22:29:42 UTC
by "$1 wins $2 in court case," I meant $1 wins the court case and is awarded $2 as a result, which is in line with your second interpretation that line alone should be evidence that I meant that interpretation I don't see anything in the conversation that implies that I thought the first interpretation if I had thought that, it would be pretty funny and embarassing
Re: "man wins breathalyzer source code in court case"yahuwcephAugust 18 2007, 14:50:03 UTC
OK in that case, she may have been the one trying to bend it to mean "man wins court case due to/using breathalyzer source code" but seeing it wasn't quite written that way and having some mind inflexibility to see it the way it was worded which you did understand
( ... )
Re: "man wins breathalyzer source code in court case"calcnerd256August 19 2007, 20:37:31 UTC
I don't think either of us thought it meant "man wins court case due to/using breathalyzer source code" and I don't see where that interpretation comes from.
Comments 5
seems to me whoever wrote it probably didn´t understand enough to write it using correct grammar or if it is correctly syntaxed, it is pretty ridiculous.
you seemed to understand it as "man wins court case due to/using breathalyzer source code", which is not quite what it says. What it is actually saying is that "man wins a breathalyzer source code in a court case". I have heard court cases suing for millions of $ and for justice to be done, but to fight in court to obtain a source code for a breathalyzer? Is that worth fighting for? And why?
she is smarter than you think. And you shouldn't have chosen to try to defend a poorly worded defective statement which is written by someone who didn't care enough to write it using his full wits about him, just to appear smart since you understood how a computerized breathalyzer reading can have a source code, because she will point out that though your tech knowledge may be polished, your english skills are pretty pitiful...
Yâhuwçëph
Reply
that line alone should be evidence that I meant that interpretation
I don't see anything in the conversation that implies that I thought the first interpretation
if I had thought that, it would be pretty funny and embarassing
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment