Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-05 Thread Camaleón
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:28:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: (...) >> > I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this >> > thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here. >> >> No need for all that work. You can

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-05 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: > >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > >> > On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: > >> (...) > >> > >> >>> "Ulte

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-05 Thread Camaleón
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: >> > On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: >> (...) >> >> >>> "Ulterior" is certainly not a synonym for "posterior", >> >> >>

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-04 Thread Lisi
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:55:47 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems > to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. You are a human being with freedom of action. If you want not to read this thread, don'

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-04 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: > On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: > (...) > > >>> "Ulterior" is certainly not a synonym for "posterior", > >> > >> But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-04 Thread Camaleón
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: (...) >>> "Ulterior" is certainly not a synonym for "posterior", >> >> But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in >> my own language but it is still perfectly correct. >

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-03 Thread Tony van der Hoff
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: In this post, "indicated for" is probably the wrong term for the context. It roughly means "prescribed". It is unclear what you really mean, but I would guess "capable of". Mmm... yes. How about

Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage

2012-04-03 Thread Camaleón
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote: >> >> (careful when quoting...) >> >>> * Camaleón [120403 13:51]: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: >