On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:14:34PM +0100, rjc wrote:
> Personally it doesn't bother me as much as illeism.
We are not amused. :)
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:22:28 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
<201205181222.28673.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> I understand American English. I usually do not understand Scottish
..clearly, Kircaldian is a Scottish language, but is it an...
> English
...language? Yes, I have been there, I mean, Ita
On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:38:40 +0300, Panayiotis wrote in message
<4fb537a0.3090...@gmail.com>:
> >>> I suspect that file recovery is his current priority.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's a "she". :-)
> >>
> > "It's"? Shouldn't that be "He's a she"? ;)
> >
> :-D :-D :-D
..that I gather would depend o
On Friday 18 May 2012 10:06:37 Darac Marjal wrote:
> It is generally agreed that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland speak
> the same English as England (being all part of the same country).
They are not part of the same country, we are four countries, and we do not
all speak the same version o
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2012 22:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> > I have no data for this, but I would be willing to bet that singular
> > they is in more widespread use in American English than any of
> > the invented words. Probably also more common
On 17/05/12 05:25 PM, Lisi wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
horrible and ridiculously artificial.
To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
(s)he, I also contend that "it'
On Thursday 17 May 2012 22:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> I have no data for this, but I would be willing to bet that singular
> they is in more widespread use in American English than any of
> the invented words. Probably also more common than "it" for
> unknown-but-present gender.
Possibly! Don't
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Lisi wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
>> horrible and ridiculously artificial.
>
> To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
> (s)he, I
On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
> horrible and ridiculously artificial.
To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
(s)he, I also contend that "it's she" is perfectly acceptable a
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, keith wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:33:45 +0100
> Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
>> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
>> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
Unlike those (and similar invented things)
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:33:45PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
Egan proposed/used 've', 'ver', 'vim' etc. in the book "Diaspora". I
was never clear what ru
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:33:45 +0100
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
One does normally use 's/he'. :)
--
keith
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...
On 17/05/2012 04:05 μμ, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
>> On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> On 16/05/12 08:50 PM, Tony Baldwin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:48:56PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
>> Hi,
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:33:45PM BST, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 17/05/12 17:23, rjc wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> >>> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
>
> On 17/05/2
On 17/05/12 17:23, rjc wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
>
> I suspect that file recovery is hi
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:50:12AM BST, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> I was kind of thinking the same thing...rm to umount a remote dir?
> But, shouldn't it be
> fusermount -u
> ??
fusermount is, as the name suggests, for (un)mounting FUSE filesystems.
> This is what I use if mounting remote dirs with s
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> > On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suspect that file recovery is his current priority.
> >>>
> >>>
>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
>>
>> On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect that file recovery is his current priority.
>>>
>>>
>> It's a "she". :-)
>>
> "It's"? Shouldn't that be "He's a she"? ;)
These d
On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
On 16/05/12 08:50 PM, Tony Baldwin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:48:56PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
Hi,
Today I made some mistake,
I mount the remote server my home
On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 16/05/12 08:50 PM, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:48:56PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
Hi,
Today I made some mistake,
I mount the remote server my home directory into local lap
>>
>> I was kind of thinking the same thing...rm to umount a remote dir?
>> But, shouldn't it be
>> fusermount -u
>> ??
>> This is what I use if mounting remote dirs with sshfs, anyway.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Excellent point, if he was using sshfs. I found it hard to figure out
> exactly what he was doing.
On 16/05/12 08:50 PM, Tony Baldwin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:48:56PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
Hi,
Today I made some mistake,
I mount the remote server my home directory into local laptop.
when I tried to umount it, I justed type the rm -r remote_mount
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:48:56PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Today I made some mistake,
> >
> >I mount the remote server my home directory into local laptop.
> >
> >when I tried to umount it, I justed type the rm -r remote_mount_dir
> >
> >after I rea
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:48:56PM BST, Gary Dale wrote:
> What the F! are you doing using rm -r to umount it with rm -r?
>
> The correct sequence of actions if you want to mount point to be
> deleted after you're done with it is:
>
> umount ~/
> rmdir
>
> NEVER use rm -r unless you are sure yo
On 16/05/12 12:49 PM, lina wrote:
Hi,
Today I made some mistake,
I mount the remote server my home directory into local laptop.
when I tried to umount it, I justed type the rm -r remote_mount_dir
after I realize it, seems some directoy under ~/home has removed,
one is .ssh, obviously.
other
On 16/05/12 17:49, lina wrote:
> Today I made some mistake,
> I mount the remote server my home directory into local laptop.
> when I tried to umount it, I justed type the rm -r remote_mount_dir
> after I realize it, seems some directoy under ~/home has removed,
Whoops...
> one is .ssh, obviously.
Hi,
Today I made some mistake,
I mount the remote server my home directory into local laptop.
when I tried to umount it, I justed type the rm -r remote_mount_dir
after I realize it, seems some directoy under ~/home has removed,
one is .ssh, obviously.
others I couldn't tell, like:
-bash-3.2$
27 matches
Mail list logo
