|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 7, 2008 13:02:27 GMT
I was reading a post on another forum where a Canadian fellow had written:
The rest of the post was spelled conventionally. It had me nonplussed for a few sentences before I twigged that he meant virgin.
I've never had an aversion to a virgin - but that fellow's virgin of the spelling was virgin' on, er, queer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 7, 2008 13:20:56 GMT
I was reading a post on another forum where a Canadian fellow had written: The rest of the post was spelled conventionally. It had me nonplussed for a few sentences before I twigged that he meant virgin. I've never had an aversion to a virgin - but that fellow's virgin of the spelling was virgin' on, er, queer. Perhaps the net nanny on the other forum was more robust (for want of a better word).  |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 7, 2008 14:17:10 GMT
Perhaps the net nanny on the other forum was more robust (for want of a better word). Unlikely. Some of the posts are quite salacious, and all words are allowed. The poster appeared to be quite serious - not joking - so perhaps he hears the "j" sound in the middle of virgin as a "zh" sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 7, 2008 15:19:51 GMT
Perhaps the net nanny on the other forum was more robust (for want of a better word). Unlikely. Some of the posts are quite salacious, and all words are allowed. The poster appeared to be quite serious - not joking - so perhaps he hears the "j" sound in the middle of virgin as a "zh" sound. Perhaps the poster has no clue but the forum has a spell checker (like the one we have). It would, therefore, correct all other spelling mistakes in the post, yet it would skip "version" as this is a correctly (mis) spelled word. Just a thought |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 7, 2008 16:26:22 GMT
I've never had an aversion to a virgin - but that fellow's virgin of the spelling was virgin' on, er, queer. Version on the ridiculous, maybe?  |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 7, 2008 22:51:56 GMT
Perhaps the poster has no clue but the forum has a spell checker (like the one we have). It would, therefore, correct all other spelling mistakes in the post, yet it would skip "version" as this is a correctly (mis) spelled word. Just a thought The only spelling checker he might have used (if typing directly into his browser) would be the one installed with his browser, because the forum is so technologically primitive that it does nothing but plain vanilla text - no spelling check, no formatting of any kind, no net nanny. It barely copes with a GUI. I rather like Pete's ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Aug 8, 2008 7:15:55 GMT
I rather like Pete's ;D ;D Ditto ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 8, 2008 7:48:55 GMT
[...]because the forum is so technologically primitive[...] Maybe it's a version forum - with more use, it will become easier to navigate and open to a wider audiance. I rather like Pete's ;D ;D Me too ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 8, 2008 19:22:18 GMT
Thank you all, I'm touched.  |
|
