1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. uk.comp.sys.mac

  • Re: Howard Oakley's Blog

    From David B.@boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 11:22:28 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 9 Apr 2026 at 09:28:10 BST, ""David B."" <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    Can YOU answer the question posed here today?

    https://i.ibb.co/MxM4GnJB/Screenshot-2026-04-09-at-09-02-13.png

    I'd welcome your response.

    I'm still left wondering why he (Dr Oakley) didn't say "*I was able*" instead of *WE* were able ....

    Can anyone help with this conundrum?

    There's probably a simple answer.

    No offence is intended.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles@none@none.none to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 12:57:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On Jun 2, 2026 at 7:22:28rC>AM EDT, "David B." <boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    On 9 Apr 2026 at 09:28:10 BST, ""David B."" <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    Can YOU answer the question posed here today?

    https://i.ibb.co/MxM4GnJB/Screenshot-2026-04-09-at-09-02-13.png

    I'd welcome your response.

    I'm still left wondering why he (Dr Oakley) didn't say "*I was able*" instead of *WE* were able ....

    Do you not understand English?

    Can anyone help with this conundrum?

    What "conundrum"?

    There's probably a simple answer.

    Yes, the answer IS simple. You are stupid.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From WolfFan@akwolffan@zoho.com to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 17:11:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On Jun 2, 2026, Nick Charles wrote
    (in article<4PSdnX-NCde0ToP3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com>):

    On Jun 2, 2026 at 7:22:28rC>AM EDT, "David B."<boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    On 9 Apr 2026 at 09:28:10 BST, ""David B.""<David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

    Can YOU answer the question posed here today?

    https://i.ibb.co/MxM4GnJB/Screenshot-2026-04-09-at-09-02-13.png

    I'd welcome your response.

    I'm still left wondering why he (Dr Oakley) didn't say "*I was able*" instead
    of *WE* were able ....

    Do you not understand English?

    olrCO yellowstain lacks the working rain cells to understand much of
    anything. HerCOs imbibed too much alcohol over too long a period and is showing the effects.


    Can anyone help with this conundrum?

    What "conundrum"?

    his lack of language skills


    There's probably a simple answer.

    Yes, the answer IS simple. You are stupid.

    he left rCystupid' way behind a long time ago

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From David B.@"David B."@invalid.org to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 22:13:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On 02/06/2026 13:57, Nick Charles wrote:
    [....]

    Do you not understand English?
    What "conundrum"?
    Yes, the answer IS simple. You are stupid.


    Actually, Nick, it is a matter of style and linguistics, which evidently
    passed you by.

    In technical, scientific, and academic writing, it is standard practice
    to use the "editorial we" or "authorial we," even when a project or
    article is spearheaded by a single individual. It serves to include the
    reader in the process of discovery (e.g., "If we look at the console
    logs...") or to maintain an objective, professional tone.

    Given Dr. Oakley's extensive scientific background, it is a very natural
    habit for him to use. I was simply curious whether he was referring to
    the collaborative effort of the Mac community helping him track the
    issue, or if it was purely stylistic.

    Thank you for contributing your usual depth of intellectual nuance to
    the discussion, though.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles@none@none.none to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 22:45:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On Jun 2, 2026 at 5:13:27rC>PM EDT, ""David B."" <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:

    On 02/06/2026 13:57, Nick Charles wrote:
    [....]

    Do you not understand English?
    What "conundrum"?
    Yes, the answer IS simple. You are stupid.


    Actually, Nick, it is a matter of style and linguistics, which evidently passed you by.

    In technical, scientific, and academic writing, it is standard practice
    to use the "editorial we" or "authorial we," even when a project or
    article is spearheaded by a single individual. It serves to include the reader in the process of discovery (e.g., "If we look at the console logs...") or to maintain an objective, professional tone.

    What "AI" wrote this gibberish? The aptly named "Clod"?

    Look, idiot. He said "thanks to the help of others, we were able to...".
    You don't need AI to parse that sentence. He is simply giving credit where it is due.

    God DAMN you are stupid.

    <more gibberish snipped>
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles@none@none.none to uk.comp.sys.mac on Tue Jun 2 22:45:53 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.comp.sys.mac

    On Jun 2, 2026 at 5:11:36rC>PM EDT, "WolfFan" <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    On Jun 2, 2026, Nick Charles wrote
    (in article<4PSdnX-NCde0ToP3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com>):

    On Jun 2, 2026 at 7:22:28rC>AM EDT, "David B."<boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 9 Apr 2026 at 09:28:10 BST, ""David B.""<David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>
    Can YOU answer the question posed here today?

    https://i.ibb.co/MxM4GnJB/Screenshot-2026-04-09-at-09-02-13.png

    I'd welcome your response.

    I'm still left wondering why he (Dr Oakley) didn't say "*I was able*"
    instead
    of *WE* were able ....

    Do you not understand English?

    olrCO yellowstain lacks the working rain cells to understand much of anything. HerCOs imbibed too much alcohol over too long a period and is showing the effects.


    Can anyone help with this conundrum?

    What "conundrum"?

    his lack of language skills


    There's probably a simple answer.

    Yes, the answer IS simple. You are stupid.

    he left rCystupid' way behind a long time ago

    All true .
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2