Periods Meeting Quotes

@spendius,

Quote:

I don't need to think about it Frank. And the ridiculousness does not bother me in the slightest. I thought it amusing. It took anachronism into the realm of astrophysics.

Your second sentence is a fragment.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Try dealing with that, Spendius.

I have already dealt with it by mentioning Atlantis and continents being swallowed up by entering the mantle to replace the lava that makes new ones. Perhaps you, and your friendly thumber, failed to notice.

", it is not unreasonable to suppose there might have been. . . " sounds a bit equivocal. You have no evidence and that it is state of mind on which your bottom line is posited on. It is not unreasonable to suppose that there might be a God. Assuming that the US Mint is run by reasonable people.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that your friendly thumber might be thumbing me down. But I wouldn't dream of going from such a supposition to arrive at a logical perspective.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Your second sentence is a fragment.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5041166)
Quote:
Your second sentence is a fragment.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Allow me to translate it:

Your second sentence is a fragment.

I hope that makes it clearer.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Was this magnificent round, and at your age it is at least that, performed on a municipal golf course where the design is such as to flatter the punters.

Comparing scores on such courses to the scores the professionals return is as daft as comparing galaxies to superstitions.

I once took the tee shots Nicklaus played in a round on a links course and laid them on the course I played on and worked out that with his average approach and putting skills he would have scored about 58. I remember one hole at Lytham where there was 200 yards of long grass between the tee and where the 15 yard wide fairway started. I've seen a chap take 20 in one of the bunkers. That's how I worked out that golf equipment manufacturers were flattering the **** out of me and I gave the game up.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Your second sentence is a fragment.

I hope that makes it clearer.

As it is obviously a fragment I cannot see why you took the trouble to point it out unless you meant something else. It is the something else I don't understand.

I think this feat on the golf course has caused a certain lightness in your noggin.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Shot my best round of the year this morning, Spendius. A 78...and a very nice 78. Hope you are happy for me.

You think that's good. On Sunday I had a round of golf at the Hat Fair. I hit the ball into something that looked like a pinball machine and got a hole in one! Now to put that into context, the seven-year old boy in front of us took about twenty shots then gave up.

Although his nine year old brother did do a lot better, I don't know exactly, he'd already finished his go by the time we got there.

4 Replies

@izzythepush,

What's all this stuff about your football heroes being involved in throwing games? Have you been paying out 20 quid to cheer on a team that has backed itself to lose?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

On Sunday I had a round of golf at the Hat Fair. I hit the ball into something that looked like a pinball machine and got a hole in one! Now to put that into context, the seven-year old boy in front of us took about twenty shots then gave up.

If you could describe the machine a bit more I might be able to explain your stunning performance izzy.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It looked like a pinball machine, and you shot the golf ball from where the plunger would go. If you don't get it in, it rolls back past the flippers, which didn't work by the way, and you've got to start again.

I bet Frank didn't have to deal with nonfunctioning flippers.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's news to me, I'll have to check it out, whatever it is.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

No no izzy. Were payments involved? That's the key question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Why don't you have a problem with singular 'you' using a plural verb?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And the ridiculousness does not bother me in the slightest.

Quote:

Your second sentence is a fragment.

Prove that it is a fragment, Frank.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Frank, you are never going to persuade me of anything if all you do is to attack the side I happen to favor. That is just a snowstorm. Offer an alternative instead and you might make some headway.

Is that what you are saying Spendius was trying to say?

yes

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

And the ridiculousness does not bother me in the slightest.

Maybe he thinks the second sentence is a fragment because it begins with a conjunction. I wouldn't call it a fragment. I happen to like this style - I think separating the independent clauses with a period /full stop as well as a conjunction adds emphasis to the second clause. When read aloud, to my ear at least, it's more indicative or illustrative of how people really speak- or at least how I speak.
But I know there is a rule that states you should never start a sentence with a conjuction. Yet I do it all the time.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I've just read it, it's an old story in that none of the current squad are involved. It all seems to have come from Claus Lundekvam, and he's had all sorts of problems recently.

Let's see what happens. I support the club, not individuals.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
And the ridiculousness does not bother me in the slightest.

Maybe he thinks the second sentence is a fragment because it begins with a conjunction. I wouldn't call it a fragment. I happen to like this style - I think separating the independent clauses with a period /full stop as well as a conjunction adds emphasis to the second clause. When read aloud, to my ear at least, it's more indicative or illustrative of how people really speak- or at least how I speak.
But I know there is a rule that states you should never start a sentence with a conjuction. Yet I do it all the time.

Conjunctions r supposed to attach things together,
conjoining them on BOTH ends of the conjunction. That is logical reasoning.

David

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Perhaps you haven't heard Frank but that rhetorical escape clause is as old as the written record. Educated people, when they hear one or other of the handful of variations go " snarf, snarf--know what I mean squire!! " tapping the side of their nose gently with their first finger whilst raising one eyebrow.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay.

TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS THREAD:

Here is the sentence Spendius wrote that I am having trouble understanding:

Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as asnowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

If anyone is able to offer a translation of that sentence into English...I would appreciate it, because Spendius is being very reasonable and courteous right now and I would like very much to respond to whatever that sentence means.

For whatever it may be worth:
I gave up on him; too much of a strain on the brain
to bother decoding & disentangling that stuff (that and his obscenity).
In my opinion, from years of tedious observation, its just not worth it.

In response to your question, I cannot begin to guess its meaning.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Comparing scores on such courses to the scores the professionals return is as daft as comparing galaxies to superstitions.

You are correct...and I was wondering why you did it.

But a good round is a pleasure for any golfer...even a duffer like me. I am happy I was able to score as well as I did...and each member of my foursome acknowledged it as something worth a slap on the back and a great big smile.

The game is a bit of exercise...and a challenge to concentration. I need both!

2 Replies

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know