This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Ununnilium: Sorry, but random references to The Contributors in an entry bother me.
Chrome Newfie: Fair enough; it was in line with the convivial atmosphere of the site but I'm new enough that I might not have a full handle on that, and smart enough to realize that fact. You might want to take a torch to Money Spider, while you're at it. ;)
Ununnilium: Heh, yeah. I'm not quite sure why it annoys me, but if I had to put a finger on something specific, I'd say it's un-Wiki-ish. I dunno.
(Also, you don't have to bullet your lines.)
Chrome Newfie: Old habit. Gomen.
Gus: No worries. Ununnilium is veteran of the Signature War, where a long gruesome battle was waged to get people to stop hack-signing every edit they made. We're all still a bit twitchy. I hope the discussion pages will remain convivial for you!
Chrome Newfie: No worries; if the whole process triggers any post-tramautic stress shakes tonight, the first round of single malt scotch is on me when you next pass through Vancouver. ;)
Ununnilium: Charlie's on the ground! Pull! *tosses pineapple (the fruit, that is) and ducks*
Twin Bird: "And the normally nonexistent sh was imported due to American influence." Um...? That really doesn't sound right; isn't one of the major hurdles learning English (and most Western languages) to learn not to say "shi" in place of "si"?
Japanese is a past-oriented language, with terms relating to historical or established precedence, rather than future-oriented like English.
Sorry, I just don't get this. In what way is English future-oriented? I'm not saying it isn't, I simply don't understand the sentence. My guess would have been that English is present-oriented...
theFirebottle : I went ahead and nailed that. It was completely meaningless, and I replaced it with something useful about verb tenses. Also went ahead and applied the linguistics-hammer to the rest of the entry.
