Posted by anthonyberet on 05/16/06 00:26

Don M. wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message news:4ag9caFrj1g7U1@individual.net...
>> <snip>
>>
>> (Which might of course be less then two - really, this was settled to
>> everyone's satisfaction some time ago - I am not sure why you keep
>> bringing it up).
>>
> ==========
>
> I bring it up just for fun, to remind you that you lost the argument to Hammerer - big
> time. Sort of "rubbing salt in people's wounds". <VBG>
> This was settled to everyone's satisfaction indeed; we all agreed that your error was
> egregious, yes.

Tut! - I see you have fallen under Hammerer's spell.
I always knew it would be so, but still it is something or other.

>
>>> BTW, it is 'fewer leeches', not 'less leeches'.
>> I expect I could defend myself, but as I also like to be a grammar-nazi
>> at times, I lift my hat to you, you cunning linguist you!
>
> Lift it again. It should be "less than two", not "less then two", unless you meant that
> thousands become less (such as one thousand) and then become two, in which case you could
> be right.
>
Eh? oh yeah.

>>> NP: "I Was Country When Country Wasn't Cool" - Barbara Mandrell
>> Hey when did country get cool? - I missed it ;)
>
> Country got cool around November. You should try leaving the computer room once in a
> while and see what the weather is like on the outside, really.
>
Eh?

[Back to original message]