What is the meaning of "At the risk of stating the obvious"
fl
I encounter a short phrase:
At the risk of stating the obvious
After I google it on the web, I still do not understand the meaning.
Could you explain it to me? Thanks.
CDB
your hearer might think you are insulting his or her intelligence by
saying something that everyone already knows.
aruzinsky
also
"A word to the wise is sufficient."
R H Draney
>
>There is a popular saying, "Only a fool states the obvious."
There are a lot of fools on television shows, then:
"As you know, the last time the police captured Henderson, he was engaged in
trying to eat a llama -- through a straw, no less...and bail was posted by an
albino midget wearing a Prussian field marshall's uniform"....
"Yes, I do know...why are you telling me again?"...
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> There is a popular saying, "Only a fool states the obvious."
Taking this in the context of your earlier posts, this seems to imply
that you define yourself as a fool.
Example: "the English language was not designed by a committee"
(paraphrasing; I can't be bothered to check what you actually wrote).
--
athel
Steve Hayes
Though most of you may already know what I'm about to tell you, I'm going to
tell you anyway.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Ian Noble
wrote:
>Hi,
"There is something important and obvious that no-one has actually
mentioned yet. So, just in case anyone has forgotten it, I'm going to
remind everyone. (And my apologies if the reminder wasn't needed.)"
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
Roland Hutchinson
That's very well put. It captures every nuance of the meaning of the
phrase.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
aruzinsky
that I agree with it is stupid. Obvious for me and not for you, many
people intellectually acknowledge facts and theories without realizing
them in practice. For example, many people believe in Darwin's theory
of evolution while allowing or promoting government interference with
natural selection of humans. They should often be reminded where this
is obviously going.
On Oct 26, 11:32 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Obviously, I didn't invent the saying and therefore your assumption
> that I agree with it is stupid. Obvious for me and not for you, many
> people intellectually acknowledge facts and theories without realizing
> them in practice. For example, many people believe in Darwin's theory
> of evolution while allowing or promoting government interference with
> natural selection of humans. They should often be reminded where this
> is obviously going.
Obviously? Maybe you should read a bit a out modern evolutionary
theory, but you wouldn't understand it, so there is probably no point.
Anyway, this is where you and I part company. Welcome to my killfile.
Incidentally (not that I'll see your answer) did your mother never
explain to you about top-posting?
a.
>
>
> On Oct 26, 11:32�am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-26 17:38:33 +0200, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com>
> said:
>>
>>> There is a popular saying, "Only a fool states the obvious."
>>
>> Taking this in the context of your earlier posts, this seems to imply
>> that you define yourself as a fool.
>>
>> Example: "the English language was not designed by a committee" �
>> (paraphrasing; I can't be bothered to check what you actually wrote).
>>
>> --
>> athel
--
athel
aruzinsky
supposed to talk behind his back?
On Oct 27, 11:50 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
wrote:
> athel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve Hayes
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>> athel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
If you say so.
LFS
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:38:08 +0100, Ian Noble wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:37:38 -0700 (PDT), fl <rxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I encounter a short phrase:
>>> At the risk of stating the obvious
>>>
>>> After I google it on the web, I still do not understand the meaning.
>>> Could you explain it to me? Thanks.
>> "There is something important and obvious that no-one has actually
>> mentioned yet. So, just in case anyone has forgotten it, I'm going to
>> remind everyone. (And my apologies if the reminder wasn't needed.)"
>
> That's very well put. It captures every nuance of the meaning of the
> phrase.
>
>
Hm. Context is all. I have more often heard it with a sarcastic edge,
meaning "You idiots, you have forgotten something really important here
and I have been clever enough to spot it."
Perhaps I just mix too much with those sort of people.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Roland Hutchinson
I suppose it's not excluded that my lengthy paraphrase (above) could also
be read sarcastically. You are entirely right that the phrase is commonly
so used.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:00:59 +0100, LFS wrote:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:38:08 +0100, Ian Noble wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:37:38 -0700 (PDT), fl <rxj...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I encounter a short phrase:
>>>>> At the risk of stating the obvious
>>>>>
>>>>> After I google it on the web, I still do not understand the meaning.
>>>>> Could you explain it to me? Thanks.
>>>> "There is something important and obvious that no-one has actually
>>>> mentioned yet. So, just in case anyone has forgotten it, I'm going to
>>>> remind everyone. (And my apologies if the reminder wasn't needed.)"
>>>
>>> That's very well put. It captures every nuance of the meaning of the
>>> phrase.
>>>
>> Hm. Context is all. I have more often heard it with a sarcastic edge,
>> meaning "You idiots, you have forgotten something really important here
>> and I have been clever enough to spot it."
>>
>> Perhaps I just mix too much with those sort of people.
>
> I suppose it's not excluded that my lengthy paraphrase (above) could
> also be read sarcastically. You are entirely right that the phrase is
> commonly so used.
Erm--not MY pararphase, Ian's.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> Erm--not MY pararphase, Ian's.
As an AmE speaker aren't you suppose to say "uhm"?
--
athel
LFS
Those sorts of people? That sort of person? It's been rather a long day...
Roland Hutchinson
I have obviously been influenced, perhaps unduly, by norms of written
English originating elsewhere. Early (and frequent) exposure to Winnie
"ther" Pooh, inter alia.
Peter Moylan
customs of that group. You must surely have noticed
impolite to come into a group and ignore the norms and
Regardless of any other factor, it is grossly
aruzinsky wrote:
> Look at Athel Cornish-Bowden's primitive affectations. What? I'm not
> supposed to talk behind his back?
>
> On Oct 27, 11:50 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
> wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally (not that I'll see your answer) did your mother never
>> explain to you about top-posting?
[Snip a great deal of stuff that should have been snipped earlier.]
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
Dictionaries rarely give the correct pronunciation of sounds like this.
It took me years to realise that AmE "uh" is pronounced almost exactly
like BrE "er". In my reading, I had been mentally pronouncing the former
with a lengthened "but" vowel.
(I came a little faster to the realisation that "mom" and "mum" sound
much the same.)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> said:
> [ ... ]
> (I came a little faster to the realisation that "mom" and "mum" sound
> much the same.)
Much the same, yes, but not identical. In the 1960s there was a widely
distributed film called The Lion in Winter (Peter O'Toole as Henry
II...). In one scene one of the sons addressed his mother as "Mummy"
(Katherine Hepburn, the Queen, as his not very motherly mother), and it
was quite clearly intended as "Mummy" and not "Mommy". The vowel in
"Mummy" is noticeably shorter.
--
athel
ke...@cam.ac.uk
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>> Perhaps I just mix too much with those sort of people.
>>
>
>Those sorts of people? That sort of person? It's been rather a long day...
I wondered about that. I don't think you can mingle with just one person,
unless in rather particular circumstances, so I'm not sure your second version
will do.
How about "persons of that sort"? There's a nice slightly-holding-the-nose
effect there.
Katy
aruzinsky
Thus, I am morally compelled to be a cultural bigot. Top posting
facilitates convenient use of my spell checker.
On Oct 28, 4:40 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>customs = culture = random habits = more bad than good habits
>
>Thus, I am morally compelled to be a cultural bigot. Top posting
>facilitates convenient use of my spell checker.
>
Interesting. The spell checker in the newsreader that I use (Agent)
ignores quoted lines and the introductory "On <date> ..." line preceding
quoted lines.
>On Oct 28, 4:40 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>wrote:
>> by now that top-posting is frowned upon in aue.
>> customs of that group. You must surely have noticed
>> impolite to come into a group and ignore the norms and
>> Regardless of any other factor, it is grossly
>>
>> aruzinsky wrote:
>> > Look at Athel Cornish-Bowden's primitive affectations. What? I'm not
>> > supposed to talk behind his back?
>>
>> > On Oct 27, 11:50 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Incidentally (not that I'll see your answer) did your mother never
>> >> explain to you about top-posting?
>>
>> [Snip a great deal of stuff that should have been snipped earlier.]
>>
>> --
>> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
>> For an e-mail address, see my web page.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
abzorba
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also: "Nudge...nudge! Wink...wink! Know what I mean, eh?
Photographs...you like photographs, don't you?"
aruzinsky
is in image processing, and, on deeper investigation, see that I
author and sell image processing software at http://www.general-cathexis.com
.
> Photographs...you like photographs, don't you?"- Hide quoted text -
R H Draney
>
>In message <iachlf$arp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> I have obviously been influenced, perhaps unduly, by norms of written
>> English originating elsewhere. Early (and frequent) exposure to Winnie
>> "ther" Pooh, inter alia.
>
>
>I told him I knew a lot about Winnie the Pooh.
>
>He laughed at what he thought was my non sequitor and said, "That was
>random." which I guess it what the kids his age say nowadays.
>
>I said, "No it wasn't. Everything you need to know about Taoism you can
>learn from Winnie the Pooh."
>
>He's pretty sure I'm yanking his chain, pulling his leg, or taking the
>piss.
>
>Tomorrow I'll have him read the first chapter of the Tao of Pooh.
And in that instant the novice was enlightened....r
John Varela
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Thus, I am morally compelled to be a cultural bigot. Top posting
> facilitates convenient use of my spell checker.
Plonk.
--
John Varela
Roland Hutchinson
That's the Way to do it!
aruzinsky
ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice. Looking
back, liberal Pres. Jimmy Carter forced the US to shun the 1980 Summer
Olympics held in Moscow. More recently, liberals Whoopy Goldberg and
Joy Behar shunned Bill O'Reilly on their own TV show, The View.
Maybe, my memory is selective, but I honestly can't remember any
conservatives making a big show of shunning.
Should I add ostentatious shunning to my list of customs within the
liberal subculture, along with wearing their hearts on their sleeves
and secretly spitting in food served to conservatives?
On Oct 31, 12:51 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:15:43 UTC, aruzinsky
>
Pat Durkin
news:cb3e3fa3-cf9a-4109...@v16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Any conservatives here? I ask because I seem to have observed that
ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice. Looking
back, liberal Pres. Jimmy Carter forced the US to shun the 1980 Summer
Olympics held in Moscow. More recently, liberals Whoopy Goldberg and
Joy Behar shunned Bill O'Reilly on their own TV show, The View.
Maybe, my memory is selective, but I honestly can't remember any
conservatives making a big show of shunning.
Should I add ostentatious shunning to my list of customs within the
liberal subculture, along with wearing their hearts on their sleeves
and secretly spitting in food served to conservatives?
Pat's reply: What do you call the complete lack of cooperation with
Democrats in the recent legislative session (2009-10)? (The actions of
the party of "NO")
But, no. Shunning is a tool that groups may use to enforce a kind of
discipline within their ranks, and, by extension, that disciplined
groups may use against outsiders. Activists doing "sit-ins",
"walk-outs", boycotts, and other mass behavior techniques, come in all
colors of the political, moral, or ethical spectra.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>Any conservatives here? I ask because I seem to have observed that
>ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice.
There was some pretty spectacular shunning by conservatives during the
"McCarthy era".
aruzinsky
> "aruzinsky" <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cb3e3fa3-cf9a-4109...@v16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Any conservatives here? I ask because I seem to have observed that
> ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice. Looking
> back, liberal Pres. Jimmy Carter forced the US to shun the 1980 Summer
> Olympics held in Moscow. More recently, liberals Whoopy Goldberg and
> Joy Behar shunned Bill O'Reilly on their own TV show, The View.
> Maybe, my memory is selective, but I honestly can't remember any
> conservatives making a big show of shunning.
>
> Should I add ostentatious shunning to my list of customs within the
> liberal subculture, along with wearing their hearts on their sleeves
> and secretly spitting in food served to conservatives?
>
> Pat's reply: What do you call the complete lack of cooperation with
> Democrats in the recent legislative session (2009-10)? (The actions of
> the party of "NO")
>
"Argument"
> But, no. Shunning is a tool that groups may use to enforce a kind of
> discipline within their ranks, and, by extension, that disciplined
> groups may use against outsiders. Activists doing "sit-ins",
> "walk-outs", boycotts, and other mass behavior techniques, come in all
> colors of the political, moral, or ethical spectra.
"No" what? Conservatives in this public forum?
Skitt
> "No" what? Conservatives in this public forum?
>
Not too many. This is a fairly well educated and bright bunch.
[runs for cover]
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
aruzinsky
conservative culture. But, it is a good example of bad behavior
embraced by modern liberals as though two wrongs make a right.
On Nov 1, 10:45 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT), aruzinsky
>
aruzinsky
On Nov 1, 1:04 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <1jrtc6pa1ba5qlmo4qbadhobji8v9u7...@4ax.com>
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT), aruzinsky
> > <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> >>Any conservatives here? I ask because I seem to have observed that
> >>ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice.
> > There was some pretty spectacular shunning by conservatives during the
> > "McCarthy era".
>
> Not to mention at every period in history where there have been
> conservatives.
>
> --
> The world is made of four elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water. This is
> a fact well known even to Corporal Nobbs. It's also wrong. There's a
> fifth element, and generally it's called Surprise. --The Truth
aruzinsky
Default User
> Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.
Please don't top-post. Replies should follow properly trimmed quotes.
Brian
--
Day 635 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.
Current music playing: None.
aruzinsky
R H Draney
>
>Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.
Warts and all....r
Steve Hayes
>Any conservatives here? I ask because I seem to have observed that
>ostentatious acts of shunning are mostly a liberal practice. Looking
>back, liberal Pres. Jimmy Carter forced the US to shun the 1980 Summer
>Olympics held in Moscow. More recently, liberals Whoopy Goldberg and
>Joy Behar shunned Bill O'Reilly on their own TV show, The View.
>Maybe, my memory is selective, but I honestly can't remember any
>conservatives making a big show of shunning.
>
>Should I add ostentatious shunning to my list of customs within the
>liberal subculture, along with wearing their hearts on their sleeves
>and secretly spitting in food served to conservatives?
I'm not sure that that is all that obvious. But a lot depends on how you
define "liberal" and "conservative", both of which, it seems to me, are pretty
well skunked.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>Like this.
I don't.
aruzinsky
–noun
1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
–verb (used without object)
2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about
the responsibilities of a good citizen?
4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rarely submit to pontification (3.), peer pressure and/or
shunning. I often submit to logical, rational argument.
Default User
> I rarely submit to pontification (3.), peer pressure and/or
> shunning. I often submit to logical, rational argument.
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
Brian
--
Day 636 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.
Current music playing: None
R H Draney
>
>pon=B7tif=B7i=B7cate
>=96noun
>1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
>2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
>3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about
>the responsibilities of a good citizen?
>4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.
>-----
>
>
>I rarely submit to pontification (3.), peer pressure and/or
>shunning. I often submit to logical, rational argument.
And I rarely perform #4, as I prefer my movements to be unbiased....r
Steve Hayes
<aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>pon·tif·i·cate
>–noun
>1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
>–verb (used without object)
>2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
>3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about
>the responsibilities of a good citizen?
>4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.
non se·qui·tur
noun \?nän-?se-kw?-t?r also -?tu?r\
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
2
- a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not
clearly related to anything previously said
aruzinsky
Therefore your "non sequitur" is non sequitur and
hyp·o·crit·i·cal (hp-krt-kl)
adj.
1. Characterized by hypocrisy: hypocritical praise.
2. Being a hypocrite: a hypocritical rogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 3, 5:56 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT), aruzinsky
>
aruzinsky
On Nov 2, 10:57 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "aruzinsky" <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote in message
aruzinsky
congressional candidates ran on a platform to repeal the National
Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the executive order giving public-
employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal
government agencies. I can only dream that the economy gets bad
enough for that to happen.
Default User
> Your link doesn't connect.
Works for me, but no matter. I won't be reading any more of your messages.
Brian
Jerry Friedman
> aruzinsky filted:
>
>
>
> >pon=B7tif=B7i=B7cate
> >=96noun
> >1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
> >=96verb (used without object)
> >2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
> >3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about
> >the responsibilities of a good citizen?
> >4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.
> >-----
>
> >I rarely submit to pontification (3.), peer pressure and/or
> >shunning. I often submit to logical, rational argument.
>
> And I rarely perform #4, as I prefer my movements to be unbiased....r
I was expecting one of your usual puns, but I feel rooked.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
> Your link doesn't connect.
>
> On Nov 2, 10:57 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "aruzinsky" <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0e5c14b1-29d4-4211...@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I rarely submit to pontification (3.), peer pressure and/or
>>> shunning. I often submit to logical, rational argument.
>> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
I strongly object to the term "bottom-posting" on that page.
Bottom-posting, to me, means adding one's contribution at the bottom
without snipping anything. This does at least preserve natural reading
order, but it copies the top-posters' annoying habit of quoting
everything except the signature, whether or not it's relevant. (Some
top-posters even quote the signature. For the most part bottom-posters
don't have that nasty habit.)
The body of the article makes it clear that the authors are in favour of
heavy snipping, so their intent is good. It's just the term that I dislike.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Nick
> aruzinsky filted:
>>
>>There is a popular saying, "Only a fool states the obvious."
>
> There are a lot of fools on television shows, then:
>
> "As you know, the last time the police captured Henderson, he was engaged in
> trying to eat a llama -- through a straw, no less...and bail was posted by an
> albino midget wearing a Prussian field marshall's uniform"....
>
> "Yes, I do know...why are you telling me again?"...
Of course, it's politeness. As you'll no doubt be aware. there are
situations where I think you might not know, but I don't want to say
so.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Nick
> aruzinsky wrote:
>
>> "No" what? Conservatives in this public forum?
>>
>
> Not too many. This is a fairly well educated and bright bunch.
>
> [runs for cover]
Under Labour I thought i was. Now they are in power, I know how Labour
felt when Blair got in.
aruzinsky
is logically remiss because it does not address spell checkers. You
are logically remiss because you already knew that. I am not going
to change spell checkers on your behalf because you don't deserve it
because you are logically remiss.
On Nov 3, 10:26 am, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "aruzinsky" <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote in message
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
aruzinsky <aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>Today, http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html worked for me too. It
>is logically remiss because it does not address spell checkers.
Relevance?
Anywho, quoted from elsewhere:
> Are you sure?
>> Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Why is top-posting so annoying?
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dgl...@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
http://www.dglenn.org/ http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org
aruzinsky
spell checker.
Your end of this conversation is irrational. A rational person does
not sweat such small stuff.
More importantly, people who unload their shopping carts, at the
cashier, from the front, as opposed to the back, are wrong because,
after paying, they sometimes forget that they have a cart and leave it
behind. Now, that is what I call "annoying." By any chance, are you
such a person?
On Dec 2, 9:25 am, dgl...@panix.com (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) wrote:
> In article <7e336208-f848-4081-8076-3b777dbba...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> >Today,http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.htmlworked for me too. It
Peter Moylan
> In article <7e336208-f848-4081...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> aruzinsky <aruz...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
>> Today, http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html worked for me too. It
>> is logically remiss because it does not address spell checkers.
>
> Relevance?
I gather that it's because he's not using a proper news client. The
spell-checker in most news clients skips the quoted part and only checks
the new material. Whatever aruzinsky is using is broken in that respect.