Oh wait, I just realized ....damn it @-anonymous- you were setting me up. I was asking you a genuine question.
Ah well ! He doesn't appear to be in a good mood . What a pity ! Save your query for another day when he's in the mood .
Off-Topic Chit-Chat
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Ah well ! He doesn't appear to be in a good mood . What a pity ! Save your query for another day when he's in the mood .
Yeah I will ask him when he is in a good mood ‘where can I find a movie clip in which a horse answers phone calls,
Good to see you buddy. This forum is literally filled with right wingers. Some balance was seriously felt.Oh wait, I just realized ....damn it @-anonymous- you were setting me up
For those interested in writing well:
Johnson: Those six little rules
George Orwell on writing
Johnson: Those six little rules
Language is no place for absolute laws
Prospero
Jul 29th 2013
by R.L.G. | BERLIN
IN MY last column, I referred to The Economist’s style guide, which includes George Orwell’s famous six rules for writing, taken from “Politics and the English Language”:
My colleague, too, referred to Orwell’s rules, suggesting that bad writing of this (and other) kinds could be avoided by following them. The most relevant of the rules, in this context was of course number (i). Avoiding clichés keeps writers from crafting a lazy string of mixed metaphors, such as a nightmare casting a shroud in a guise of contagion that resembled a deer so unlucky as to be both caught in headlights and paralysed.
Yet Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania and a blogger at Language Log, has taken us to task. Orwell says “never” use metaphors you are used to seeing in print. But, as Mr Liberman documents in many examples, The Economist has repeatedly referred to shrouds, nightmares, contagions and deer caught in headlights in our own pages.
The problem is the absolute nature of Orwell’s rules. The first five all include either a “never” or an “always”. Critics point out that a strict application of these rules would make for very strange writing. That's why Orwell himself doesn’t always obey them. Of the tensed transitive verbs in “Politics and the English Language”, at least a fifth are in the passive voice. Indeed, one rears its head in the second paragraph:
Geoffrey Pullum, Mr Liberman’s stablemate at Language Log, goes so far as to dismiss Orwell’s essay as “dishonest”. But was Orwell aiming to mislead when he told writers never to use the passive? No. He merely failed to hold himself to this rule at all times. That simply makes him human—a frailty shared by journalists at The Economist. (Well, most journalists; our science editor we're not always sure about.) Orwell accommodated poetic license in his sixth rule: “Break any of these rules rather than say something outright barbarous.” A hint of flexibility. Yet he should have gone a little further.
Indeed, here are his rules liberated from those dogmatic “nevers” and the “always”:
Johnson: Those six little rules
George Orwell on writing
Johnson: Those six little rules
Language is no place for absolute laws
Prospero
Jul 29th 2013
by R.L.G. | BERLIN
IN MY last column, I referred to The Economist’s style guide, which includes George Orwell’s famous six rules for writing, taken from “Politics and the English Language”:
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Around the same time, my colleague flagged a candidate for “The world's worst sentence”. It was (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Yet the nightmare cast its shroud in the guise of a contagion of a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis.
My colleague, too, referred to Orwell’s rules, suggesting that bad writing of this (and other) kinds could be avoided by following them. The most relevant of the rules, in this context was of course number (i). Avoiding clichés keeps writers from crafting a lazy string of mixed metaphors, such as a nightmare casting a shroud in a guise of contagion that resembled a deer so unlucky as to be both caught in headlights and paralysed.
Yet Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania and a blogger at Language Log, has taken us to task. Orwell says “never” use metaphors you are used to seeing in print. But, as Mr Liberman documents in many examples, The Economist has repeatedly referred to shrouds, nightmares, contagions and deer caught in headlights in our own pages.
The problem is the absolute nature of Orwell’s rules. The first five all include either a “never” or an “always”. Critics point out that a strict application of these rules would make for very strange writing. That's why Orwell himself doesn’t always obey them. Of the tensed transitive verbs in “Politics and the English Language”, at least a fifth are in the passive voice. Indeed, one rears its head in the second paragraph:
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.
It would been easy for Orwell to write this sentence in the active voice:Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which one can avoid if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.
So Orwell exposes himself right there in paragraph two. Geoffrey Pullum, Mr Liberman’s stablemate at Language Log, goes so far as to dismiss Orwell’s essay as “dishonest”. But was Orwell aiming to mislead when he told writers never to use the passive? No. He merely failed to hold himself to this rule at all times. That simply makes him human—a frailty shared by journalists at The Economist. (Well, most journalists; our science editor we're not always sure about.) Orwell accommodated poetic license in his sixth rule: “Break any of these rules rather than say something outright barbarous.” A hint of flexibility. Yet he should have gone a little further.
Indeed, here are his rules liberated from those dogmatic “nevers” and the “always”:
(i) Avoid using metaphors, similes, or other figures of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Think of fresh ones wherever you can.
(ii) Prefer short words to long ones.
(iii) Try cutting a lot of your word-count, especially those words that add little extra meaning.
(iv) Don’t over-use the passive voice. And whether passive or active, be clear who did what to whom.
(v) Prefer everyday English to foreign, scientific or jargon words.
And then here’s revised rule (vi), to be borne in mind by the language pundit.(ii) Prefer short words to long ones.
(iii) Try cutting a lot of your word-count, especially those words that add little extra meaning.
(iv) Don’t over-use the passive voice. And whether passive or active, be clear who did what to whom.
(v) Prefer everyday English to foreign, scientific or jargon words.
(vi) Good writing is no place for the tyrant. Never say “never” and always avoid “always”, or at the least handle them with care. Overusing such words is an invitation for critics to hold you to your own impossible standard.
A MUST of the world’s largest computer scientists have shown that the cost of transporting the sound waves into the back of the sun is the best way to create a set of pictures of the sort that can be solved. It is also because the same film is a special prototype. A person with a stretch of a piece of software can be transmitted by a security process that can be added to a single bit of reading. The material is composed of a single pixel, which is possible and thus causes the laser to be started to convert the resulting steam to the surface of the battery capable of producing power from the air and then turning it into a low-cost display. The solution is to encode the special control of a chip to be found in a car.
The result is a shape of an alternative to electric cars, but the most famous problem is that the control system is then powered by a computer that is composed of a second part of the spectrum. The first solution is far from cheap. But if it is a bit like a solid sheet of contact with the spectrum, it can be read as the sound waves are available. The position of the system is made of a carbon containing a special component that can be used to connect the air to a conventional diesel engine.
The problem with the approach is that it reaches the fuel by reflecting a fuel cell to an array of materials that are sensitive to the light that is composed of solar energy. In the meantime, the process can be made to act as a prototype of a superconducting machine. The technology is also a short-range process that is being developed for comparison by the magnetic fields of the solar system.
The result is a chemical called the carbon nanotube that is absorbed by the process of converting a solid oxide into a chemical that is specific to the cellular nerve. The stuff is able to extract energy from the image and then releases the electrons that can be detected by stimulating the image in the bloodstream. The surface temperature is not a molecule that is also being compared with the small energy of the structure of a metal. A single organ is a large amount of energy, which is particularly intense. The internal combustion chamber is thus able to produce a photon which is being developed to produce a second protein called the body-causing protein that has a complex and comparable process to stop the components of an antibiotic.
The result is a shape of an alternative to electric cars, but the most famous problem is that the control system is then powered by a computer that is composed of a second part of the spectrum. The first solution is far from cheap. But if it is a bit like a solid sheet of contact with the spectrum, it can be read as the sound waves are available. The position of the system is made of a carbon containing a special component that can be used to connect the air to a conventional diesel engine.
The problem with the approach is that it reaches the fuel by reflecting a fuel cell to an array of materials that are sensitive to the light that is composed of solar energy. In the meantime, the process can be made to act as a prototype of a superconducting machine. The technology is also a short-range process that is being developed for comparison by the magnetic fields of the solar system.
The result is a chemical called the carbon nanotube that is absorbed by the process of converting a solid oxide into a chemical that is specific to the cellular nerve. The stuff is able to extract energy from the image and then releases the electrons that can be detected by stimulating the image in the bloodstream. The surface temperature is not a molecule that is also being compared with the small energy of the structure of a metal. A single organ is a large amount of energy, which is particularly intense. The internal combustion chamber is thus able to produce a photon which is being developed to produce a second protein called the body-causing protein that has a complex and comparable process to stop the components of an antibiotic.
Soon I will be three score years and ten.@bonobashi if you don’t mind me asking how old are you?
hello friends , buy bharat earth movers shares yesterday it closed at 1500 , keep adding it if at all it falls , very difficult to fall below 1400 . the price can shoot up to around 2500 before march . 
.
.
hello friends , buy bharat earth movers shares yesterday it closed at 1500 , keep adding it if at all it falls , very difficult to fall below 1400 . the price can shoot up to around 2500 before march .
How did you predict it ll cross 2000 level ?
last 1 year all share prices went up, not just BEML ..