Discussion:
Two spaces or one... a study
(too old to reply)
Bill Day
2018-05-06 15:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
interesting reading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
or
https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
--
remove nonsense for reply
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-06 16:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:20:29 AM UTC-4, Bill Day wrote:
> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> interesting reading.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> or
> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
> --
> remove nonsense for reply

"between each sentence" would be considered a solecism by the sort of person
who would waste their time talking about spaces after a period.
s***@gmail.com
2018-05-11 20:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-7, Bill Day wrote:
> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> interesting reading.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> or
> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd

Randall already has this covered.
<URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>

/dps
Jerry Friedman
2018-05-11 21:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-7, Bill Day wrote:
> > Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> > interesting reading.
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> > or
> > https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>
> Randall already has this covered.
> <URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>

Cute, /and/ I learned "SMDH".

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2018-05-12 01:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/05/18 06:53, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-7, Bill Day wrote:

>> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
>> interesting reading.
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
>> or
>> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>
> Randall already has this covered.
> <URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>

I've always asserted that IMHO stands for "in my harrogant opinion".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
micky
2018-05-12 03:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In alt.usage.english, on Sat, 12 May 2018 11:29:37 +1000, Peter Moylan
<***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 12/05/18 06:53, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-7, Bill Day wrote:
>
>>> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
>>> interesting reading.
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
>>> or
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>>
>> Randall already has this covered.
>> <URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>
>
>I've always asserted that IMHO stands for "in my harrogant opinion".

I think the h is silent there, so it should be "mine harrogant
opinion".

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-05-12 06:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-12 01:29:37 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 12/05/18 06:53, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:20:29 AM UTC-7, Bill Day wrote:
>
>>> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
>>> interesting reading.
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
>>>
>>> or
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>>
>> Randall already has this covered.
>> <URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>
>
> I've always asserted that IMHO stands for "in my harrogant opinion".

Quite right too. Those who use this expression (whether as an
abbreviation or spelled out) are never being humble and often not being
honest. Maybe "half-baked".


--
athel
CDB
2018-05-12 13:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/11/2018 4:53 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Day wrote:

>> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
>> interesting reading.
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
>>
>>
or
>> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd

> Randall already has this covered. <URL:https://xkcd.com/1989/>

As an expression of ornery disagreement, it's hard to beat "Oh. My.
Genitals."

The "F" is left as an exercise for the reader. (I didn't write the
smutty stuff on purpose, but I left it in on purpose.)
occam
2018-05-16 09:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/05/2018 17:20, Bill Day wrote:
> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> interesting reading.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> or
> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>

To add more fuel to this fire, here is an article also discussing this
study:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spaces-after-a-period/559304/

According to the article there is a "scientific case" for two spaces
after the full stop. This, according to psychophysics. Psycho- what?
Psychobabble, perhaps.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-16 11:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 10:51:52 UTC+1, occam wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 17:20, Bill Day wrote:
> > Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> > interesting reading.
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> > or
> > https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
> >
>
> To add more fuel to this fire, here is an article also discussing this
> study:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spaces-after-a-period/559304/
>
> According to the article there is a "scientific case" for two spaces
> after the full stop. This, according to psychophysics. Psycho- what?
> Psychobabble, perhaps.

Actually one of the more scientific branches of psychology, mapping
stimuli to mental phenomena.The effect of layout and spacing on
reading fluency and comprehension is an obvious area of study.
occam
2018-05-16 12:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/05/2018 13:45, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 10:51:52 UTC+1, occam wrote:
>> On 06/05/2018 17:20, Bill Day wrote:
>>> Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
>>> interesting reading.
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
>>> or
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
>>>
>>
>> To add more fuel to this fire, here is an article also discussing this
>> study:
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spaces-after-a-period/559304/
>>
>> According to the article there is a "scientific case" for two spaces
>> after the full stop. This, according to psychophysics. Psycho- what?
>> Psychobabble, perhaps.
>
> Actually one of the more scientific branches of psychology, mapping
> stimuli to mental phenomena.The effect of layout and spacing on
> reading fluency and comprehension is an obvious area of study.
>

Madrigal, if you use a ruler to measure your dangle before and after
watching pornography, does that make watching porno any more scientific?
I don't think so.
CDB
2018-05-16 15:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/16/2018 8:20 AM, occam wrote:
> Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:

[psychophysics: the Mardigal defence]

> Madrigal, if you use a ruler to measure your dangle before and after
> watching pornography, does that make watching porno any more
> scientific? I don't think so.

What if he used a protractor?
occam
2018-05-16 17:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/05/2018 17:55, CDB wrote:
> On 5/16/2018 8:20 AM, occam wrote:
>> Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>
> [psychophysics: the Mardigal defence]
>
>> Madrigal, if you use a ruler to measure your dangle before and after
>> watching pornography, does that make watching porno any more
>> scientific? I don't think so.
>
> What if he used a protractor?
>
>

That reminds me of (lesser known) Newton's Fourth Law:

"The angle of the dangle is proportional to the mass of the ass."

(This joke, courtesy of my 'A' Level Physics master, was told to the
whole class.)
Peter Moylan
2018-05-17 04:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/05/18 03:18, occam wrote:
> On 16/05/2018 17:55, CDB wrote:
>> On 5/16/2018 8:20 AM, occam wrote:
>>> Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>
>> [psychophysics: the Mardigal defence]
>>
>>> Madrigal, if you use a ruler to measure your dangle before and
>>> after watching pornography, does that make watching porno any
>>> more scientific? I don't think so.
>>
>> What if he used a protractor?
>
> That reminds me of (lesser known) Newton's Fourth Law:
>
> "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the mass of the ass."
>
> (This joke, courtesy of my 'A' Level Physics master, was told to the
> whole class.)

We had a different version, but I'll spare everyone and not quote it.

Your version wouldn't have flown here, because we also had a saying "Men
don't make passes at girls with big arses".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-17 11:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:41:29 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 17/05/18 03:18, occam wrote:
> > On 16/05/2018 17:55, CDB wrote:
> >> On 5/16/2018 8:20 AM, occam wrote:
> >>> Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:

> >> [psychophysics: the Mardigal defence]
> >>> Madrigal, if you use a ruler to measure your dangle before and
> >>> after watching pornography, does that make watching porno any
> >>> more scientific? I don't think so.
> >> What if he used a protractor?
> > That reminds me of (lesser known) Newton's Fourth Law:
> > "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the mass of the ass."
> > (This joke, courtesy of my 'A' Level Physics master, was told to the
> > whole class.)
>
> We had a different version, but I'll spare everyone and not quote it.
>
> Your version wouldn't have flown here, because we also had a saying "Men
> don't make passes at girls with big arses".

The original, attributed to Dorothy Parker, is "Men don't make passes at
girls who wear glasses."

(The other one was heard here as "The angle of the dangle is proportional
to the heat of the meat.")

As for the "ass" saying, these days *Family Feud* routinely asks survey
questions turning on the attractiveness of female anatomy, and "big booty"
routinely turns up as a desirable trait. (They also do questions about the
attractiveness of male anatomy, where a small one is generally preferred.)
RH Draney
2018-05-17 11:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/17/2018 4:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:41:29 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> Your version wouldn't have flown here, because we also had a saying "Men
>> don't make passes at girls with big arses".
>
> The original, attributed to Dorothy Parker, is "Men don't make passes at
> girls who wear glasses."

And in a episode of "Maude", a gay friend of the title character
reassured Maude's husband that he had no designs upon him by reciting "I
never make passes at men with mustaches"....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-17 11:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:48:41 AM UTC-4, RH Draney wrote:
> On 5/17/2018 4:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:41:29 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >> Your version wouldn't have flown here, because we also had a saying "Men
> >> don't make passes at girls with big arses".
> > The original, attributed to Dorothy Parker, is "Men don't make passes at
> > girls who wear glasses."
>
> And in a episode of "Maude", a gay friend of the title character
> reassured Maude's husband that he had no designs upon him by reciting "I
> never make passes at men with mustaches"....r

But wasn't that during the height of the Castro Clone era?
RH Draney
2018-05-17 20:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/17/2018 4:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:48:41 AM UTC-4, RH Draney wrote:
>> On 5/17/2018 4:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:41:29 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>>> Your version wouldn't have flown here, because we also had a saying "Men
>>>> don't make passes at girls with big arses".
>>> The original, attributed to Dorothy Parker, is "Men don't make passes at
>>> girls who wear glasses."
>>
>> And in a episode of "Maude", a gay friend of the title character
>> reassured Maude's husband that he had no designs upon him by reciting "I
>> never make passes at men with mustaches"....r
>
> But wasn't that during the height of the Castro Clone era?

Not sure...my own mustache didn't get underway until 1983...(but unlike
Alex Trebek, I've still got mine)....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-16 12:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:51:52 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 17:20, Bill Day wrote:
> > Not that it's going to solve anything or change anyone's mind, but
> > interesting reading.
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?utm_term=.bdf8ccafdff2&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
> > or
> > https://tinyurl.com/y6uf7vtd
> >
>
> To add more fuel to this fire, here is an article also discussing this
> study:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spaces-after-a-period/559304/
>
> According to the article there is a "scientific case" for two spaces
> after the full stop. This, according to psychophysics. Psycho- what?
> Psychobabble, perhaps.

Near the bottom, it is revealed that only one font was tested, and that
a mono-spaced one. Did the journal that published the study not have
competent referees?
Loading...