Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 9/3/2017 5:54 AM, NY wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote:

Sometimes the call is not from someone I know, but from someone
I do business with, for example from a doctor's office
confirming an appointment I have, so I'm often reluctant to
hang up before I ask that question.

That's what Call Display is for.

Yes, but it doesn't work on my phone.

And calls from most health-related organisations are "withheld", the
same as scammers.

I once had a call from someone who wouldn't say who they were and
wanted to speak to my wife who was at work and who was expecting a
call from the doctor at some stage. The caller and reached a slight
stalemate, because they wouldn't even answer a direct question "is
that the doctor's surgery" so I said "I'll get get to phone the
doctors, on the assumption that that who you are". And it was.

Is calling your wife "get" like calling her your "current wife"?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_g.htm

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:37:47 -0400, CDB wrote:

On 9/3/2017 5:54 AM, NY wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote:

Sometimes the call is not from someone I know, but from someone
I do business with, for example from a doctor's office
confirming an appointment I have, so I'm often reluctant to
hang up before I ask that question.

That's what Call Display is for.

Yes, but it doesn't work on my phone.

And calls from most health-related organisations are "withheld", the
same as scammers.

I once had a call from someone who wouldn't say who they were and
wanted to speak to my wife who was at work and who was expecting a
call from the doctor at some stage. The caller and reached a slight
stalemate, because they wouldn't even answer a direct question "is
that the doctor's surgery" so I said "I'll get get to phone the
doctors, on the assumption that that who you are". And it was.

Is calling your wife "get" like calling her your "current wife"?

smile

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_g.htm


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

On 09/03/2017 01:40 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I've always heard that as "Your call will be answered in the order IN
WHICH it was received",

It says "YOUR call". That is a single thing, which does not have an order.

[snip]

--
113 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end
.... where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the
church of his choice." -- President John F. Kennedy

On 09/03/2017 05:31 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

[snip]

I once knew a couple who gave the phone to a young child when they got a
sales call.


My mother told me about a coworkers' 2-year-old who answered the phone
with "hello goodbye", and hung up.

--
113 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end
.... where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the
church of his choice." -- President John F. Kennedy

On 09/03/2017 07:37 AM, CDB wrote:

[snip]

Oh good, somebody who wants to explain QM. I have a naive question:
suppose you rig the box with food and water for two weeks (and air is
laid on free); in some repetitions of the experiment, the cat may have
met its cosmic particle days before the box opens. Are you telling me
that cat don't stink?

Maybe the cat would stink 50% as much as normal.

On 3/9/17 12:45 pm, RH Draney wrote:
On 9/2/2017 1:33 PM, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:51:00 +0100, HVS
wrote:

Same here (allowing for different names), but my most common response
to "May I speak to (name)" when I can hear call-centre noises in the
background is "No - you can't; sorry" before I hang up. (Whoever
wrote that script for them was incompetent, as they shouldn't give
punters like me the opening to answer that way.)

The claim I've heard lately is that if a cold-caller asks what is
meant to elicit a "yes" or "no" answer - "Am I speaking to Mr
Whatever? " - your answer shouldn't include the word "yes", as it can
be cut-and-pasted as the answer to an entirely different question
(like "Are you happy for us to contact you again?" or "Do you wish to
sign up to our service?").Â* They can then use it to argue that they
asked for and received consent if the regulators get on their backs
for mis-selling.

(That's presumably something of an urban myth, but I've stopped
answering "yes" to any question fromÂ* cold-callers, just in case.)

I've stopped answering "yes" at all, for the same reason.
It is a cheap way to avoid a conceivable problem - rather like
making some concession to the latest unverified dietary advice.

I don't answer "yes" to that particular question, but in my case it's
more a gentle way to correct the way they always mangle my name (and in
58 years I've amassed quite a collection of those):

Â* Caller:Â* "May I speak to Ron Dannerjee?"
Â* Me:Â* "This is Ron Draynee"

I think I would be more likely to say "No" and put the phone down.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

On 03-Sep-17 21:50, notX wrote:
On 09/03/2017 07:37 AM, CDB wrote:

[snip]

Oh good, somebody who wants to explain QM.Â* I have a naive question:
suppose you rig the box with food and water for two weeks (and air is
laid on free); in some repetitions of the experiment, the cat may have
met its cosmic particle days before the box opens.Â* Are you telling me
that cat don't stink?

Maybe the cat would stink 50% as much as normal.

The odour of (50%) sans-kitty?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 9/3/2017 6:11 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 03-Sep-17 21:50, notX wrote:
On 09/03/2017 07:37 AM, CDB wrote:

[snip]

Oh good, somebody who wants to explain QM.Â* I have a naive question:
suppose you rig the box with food and water for two weeks (and air is
laid on free); in some repetitions of the experiment, the cat may have
met its cosmic particle days before the box opens.Â* Are you telling me
that cat don't stink?

Maybe the cat would stink 50% as much as normal.

The odour of (50%) sans-kitty?

"Smelly cat, smelly cat,
What are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat,
It's not your fault."

.....r

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:43:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 09/03/2017 01:40 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I've always heard that as "Your call will be answered in the order IN
WHICH it was received",

It says "YOUR call". That is a single thing, which does not have an order.

[snip]

From the caller's perspective, "your call" is indeed a single thing, but
that's completely irrelevant because from the opposite perspective, (the
side that's issuing the message), it's just another call within a group
of calls. That group has an order.

The fact that there's a queue in the first place tells me that the place
that I've called has a call queue and I'm in it. That call queue has
multiple members, (else they'd answer my call straightaway), so by
necessity it has to have an order. FIFO is usually the order, which is
fine with me. It seems to be the most fair.

Bottom line, the whole thing makes perfect sense to me. Even if there's
the slightest hint of a grammatical irregularity somewhere, it clearly
conveys what it's intended to convey, so I don't see a problem.

On 9/3/2017 4:50 PM, notX wrote:
CDB wrote:

[snip]

Oh good, somebody who wants to explain QM.Â* I have a naive question:
suppose you rig the box with food and water for two weeks (and air is
laid on free); in some repetitions of the experiment, the cat may have
met its cosmic particle days before the box opens.Â* Are you telling me
that cat don't stink?
Maybe the cat would stink 50% as much as normal.

Maybe it would stink in one nostril.

On 09/04/2017 12:12 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

Bottom line, the whole thing makes perfect sense to me. Even if there's
the slightest hint of a grammatical irregularity somewhere, it clearly
conveys what it's intended to convey, so I don't see a problem.

There's still an inconsistency between singular and part of a group.
It's the "your" (fake personal, when they don't really mean it).

--
112 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Christian religion teaches us to imitate a God cruel, insidious,
jealous, and implacable in his wrath." -- Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:50:54 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 09/04/2017 12:12 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

Bottom line, the whole thing makes perfect sense to me. Even if there's
the slightest hint of a grammatical irregularity somewhere, it clearly
conveys what it's intended to convey, so I don't see a problem.

There's still an inconsistency between singular and part of a group.
It's the "your" (fake personal, when they don't really mean it).

I don't get it. Of course my one call is singular, but my call is part
of a group of calls. That's not an inconsistency.

When I take my car out on the road, my car (singular) is one among many
(plural). That's not an inconsistency.

On 09/05/2017 11:14 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I don't get it. Of course my one call is singular, but my call is part
of a group of calls. That's not an inconsistency.

When I take my car out on the road, my car (singular) is one among many
(plural). That's not an inconsistency.


"your car" is singular. It is not the same thing as "all cars", in the
same way "your call" is not the same thing is "all calls in the group".
The message is being applied incorrectly (a message for "all calls"
being applied to one "your call").

--
111 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I'm trying to free your mind, but I can only show you the door. You're
the one who has to walk through." -- Morpheus - ("The Matrix")

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:15:54 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 09/05/2017 11:14 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I don't get it. Of course my one call is singular, but my call is part
of a group of calls. That's not an inconsistency.

When I take my car out on the road, my car (singular) is one among many
(plural). That's not an inconsistency.


"your car" is singular. It is not the same thing as "all cars", in the
same way "your call" is not the same thing is "all calls in the group".
The message is being applied incorrectly (a message for "all calls"
being applied to one "your call").

I don't get your point, but I appreciate your patience. Thanks.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 09/05/2017 11:14 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I don't get it. Of course my one call is singular, but my call is part
of a group of calls. That's not an inconsistency.

When I take my car out on the road, my car (singular) is one among many
(plural). That's not an inconsistency.


"your car" is singular. It is not the same thing as "all cars", in the
same way "your call" is not the same thing is "all calls in the group".
The message is being applied incorrectly (a message for "all calls" being
applied to one "your call").

Short of having a personalised message (maybe giving your position in the
queue), a general message for everybody saying that your call is answered in
the order that it is received seems fairly sensible. How would you have
worded it differently? "All calls are answered in the order that they are
received", perhaps? I suppose they are trying to make their message more
personal.