From Newsgroup: sci.lang



Which is better? (1 or 2 ?)

1. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like."

2. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they'll like."


___________________


Take for example, expensive $200 LEGO kits...

We 've changed as people (in the last 50 or 60 years), haven't we?

-------- everything (our tastes, our Hobbies) are more specialized, now?


___________________


Do most LEGO fans like plastic models, and vice versa?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

Verily, in article <1767840729-4055@newsgrouper.org>, did
HenHanna@NewsGrouper deliver unto us this message:

Which is better? (1 or 2 ?)

1. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like."

2. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they'll like."

I suppose it depends on whether the thing already exists. If it does, I
prefer #1. If the thing is new or still being developed, I prefer #2.
--
Trustworthy words are not pretty;
Pretty words are not trustworthy.

-Lao-Tzu spoke those pretty words.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 08/01/2026 02:52, HenHanna@NewsGrouper wrote:

Which is better? (1 or 2 ?)

1. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like."

2. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they'll like."

Will or shall?

Should!


3. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing
they should like."

Distinct from "ought" even if "should" is bleaching into "ought". Maybe
we can save it (it still is used as the conditional sense of shall in
places even if it's now merely idiomatic).

The condition for 3 can be guessed at as "if only they shall still like
them and I guessed at the class of things they like correctly" which is
why "should" is the right solution.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 08/01/2026 12:03, The True Melissa wrote:

Verily, in article <1767840729-4055@newsgrouper.org>, did HenHanna@NewsGrouper deliver unto us this message:

Which is better? (1 or 2 ?)

1. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like."

2. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they'll like."

I suppose it depends on whether the thing already exists. If it does, I prefer #1. If the thing is new or still being developed, I prefer #2.

True Melissa, please don't give oxygen to the posts of the moron
HenHanna - at least not in AUE. The clucking Hen is an attention
seeking whore who posts, just to annoy thinking people.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang


occam <occam@nowhere.nix> posted:

On 08/01/2026 12:03, The True Melissa wrote:

Verily, in article <1767840729-4055@newsgrouper.org>, did HenHanna@NewsGrouper deliver unto us this message:

Which is better? (1 or 2 ?)

1. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like."

2. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they'll like."

I suppose it depends on whether the thing already exists. If it does, I prefer #1. If the thing is new or still being developed, I prefer #2.

True Melissa, please don't give oxygen to the posts of the moron
HenHanna - at least not in AUE. The clucking Hen is an attention
seeking whore who posts, just to annoy thinking people.

I had the idea that I had sent this comment yesterday, but apparently I failed to press Post. Anyway,

Thanks for your remark, Occam, which exactly corresponds to what I think. The True Melissa (is there a False Melissa?) is well on the way to becoming a Respected Regular so it would be pity to spoil it.

I am deleting rec.puzzles from the list of Newsgroups. If people there want to engage in a clucking contest that's their affair.
--
athel

Living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly in England before that
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2