Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote:
ORIGINAL: Orm Wasn't that technically an UNP? Well, technically, it was in my queue of posts. I fully intended to post it, so it was hardly unintentional. Perhaps its positioning as the second post on the page was unconventional, I'll grant you. I'm in the mood for compromise today, so let's call it a retrospective U-INP? Ok. Sounds perfect. And, for information, I was intending to steal that INP from you, but my fingers failed me and I spelled something wrong and went back to correct it since I didn't want an edit in that post. And then I realized I was to slow. As usual. Will you go back and correct the misspelling in this post too? Nope. That is the correct spelling. Your two uses of the word 'to' are one too many. As my follow-up post stated, your 'to slow' was one of the two uses of 'to', but one too many. It should have been 'too'. Not two too many, just one too many. Yes, indeed. But I have changed the spelling of the two uses into 'to'. So now they both are spelled 'to'. I see you use the old, faulty, spelling of the word to. I'm sorry again. I meant that there were not two too many, just one too many. Or insufficient quantities of 'too'. In that case, it should have been 'too' few. Not two few or 'tofu' (that's something completely different) or even 'to few' (as that's also something completely different). But too few 'too'. Phew!
_____________________________
|