Off Topic
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
i always thought it was "minuscule", monty
AND localboy's brain, haha.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:29, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
AND localboy's brain, haha.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:29, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
you know how dim people make themselves sound when they go on at length
on subjects where they have done all their research on wikipedia?
hmmm??
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:33, Reply)
on subjects where they have done all their research on wikipedia?
hmmm??
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:33, Reply)
Does off topic count as a formal context?
The standard spelling is minuscule rather than miniscule. The latter form is a very common one (accounting for almost half of citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus), and has been recorded since the late 19th century. It arose by analogy with other words beginning with mini-, where the meaning is similarly ‘very small’. It is now so widely used that it can be considered as an acceptable variant, although it should be avoided in formal contexts.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:33, Reply)
The standard spelling is minuscule rather than miniscule. The latter form is a very common one (accounting for almost half of citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus), and has been recorded since the late 19th century. It arose by analogy with other words beginning with mini-, where the meaning is similarly ‘very small’. It is now so widely used that it can be considered as an acceptable variant, although it should be avoided in formal contexts.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:33, Reply)
there you go monts, this proves it
as pd is never correct on anything.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:34, Reply)
as pd is never correct on anything.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:34, Reply)
See above.
Oh God, am I white-knighting a girl on the internet?
*checks gaz box for tit-gaz*
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:34, Reply)
Oh God, am I white-knighting a girl on the internet?
*checks gaz box for tit-gaz*
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:34, Reply)
i think there is a get out clause, let me check...
yes, clause 3.1 (m) (ii):
one shall not be a white knight if one's comment is made in the exclusive preserve of tackling a plum or a dozer
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:36, Reply)
yes, clause 3.1 (m) (ii):
one shall not be a white knight if one's comment is made in the exclusive preserve of tackling a plum or a dozer
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:36, Reply)
I refer you to the case of losers vs weepers.
Or Arkell vs Pressdram.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:37, Reply)
Or Arkell vs Pressdram.
( , Tue 8 Jan 2013, 13:37, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread