#editorial | Logs for 2017-06-27

« return
[01:58:46] -!- n1 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[01:59:14] -!- n1 [n1!~nick@Soylent/Staff/Editor/n1] has joined #editorial
[01:59:14] -!- mode/#editorial [+v n1] by Hephaestus
[02:20:46] <Bytram> cmn32480: ping!
[02:20:58] <cmn32480> pong
[02:20:59] * Bytram sees you've been pushing out stories... I'll try and 2nd them
[02:21:07] <Bytram> hwo was your day?
[02:21:08] <cmn32480> thought you was on vacation?
[02:21:14] <Bytram> I am
[02:21:21] <cmn32480> from here too?
[02:21:24] <cmn32480> I thoughts
[02:21:29] <Bytram> was trying to
[02:21:38] <cmn32480> then go away
[02:21:39] <Bytram> saw the queue had run dry and poked in my nose
[02:21:50] <cmn32480> I got it covered
[02:22:01] <cmn32480> play a game
[02:22:04] <cmn32480> watch the stars
[02:22:07] <cmn32480> read a book
[02:22:09] <Bytram> 2nding chicago
[02:22:13] <cmn32480> count your toes
[02:22:24] <Bytram> a perfect Bo Derek!
[02:23:19] <Bytram> 2nding russia telegram
[02:34:17] <Bytram> 2nding planet 9
[02:40:46] <Bytram> 2nding bacteria
[02:41:32] <Bytram> 2nding poor endpoint secutiry
[02:42:38] <Bytram> 2nding trump travel ban
[02:51:53] <cmn32480> I'm done
[02:51:56] <cmn32480> I need to go to bed
[02:52:06] <cmn32480> good through noonish tomorrow
[02:52:38] <cmn32480> ~gnight bytram
[02:52:40] * exec emphatically blows a boatload of non-alcoholic carbonated beverage at bytram
[02:52:58] <Bytram> ~gnight cmn32480
[02:53:00] * exec provocatively pits a dongle of humility against cmn32480
[02:53:11] <cmn32480> I dropped the CNN fake news in the main page
[02:53:12] <Bytram> thanks a bunch for handling the story queue!
[02:53:17] <cmn32480> with a rather lengthy ed note
[02:53:23] * Bytram goes to look
[02:53:33] <Bytram> btw, how was the day with the scouts?
[02:54:19] <cmn32480> long and tiring
[02:54:22] <cmn32480> sunny
[02:54:30] <cmn32480> fun
[02:54:33] <cmn32480> mostly
[02:54:37] <Bytram> that's better than pouring rain, right?
[02:54:43] <cmn32480> yup
[02:54:50] <Bytram> fun is good, too.
[02:55:04] <Bytram> get thee some sleep -- another busy day ahead for ya.
[02:55:12] <cmn32480> pretty much
[02:55:20] <cmn32480> any thoughts on that ed note?
[02:55:28] <Bytram> cmn32480++ really, many thanks for posting stories, even when you are exhausted!
[02:55:28] <Bender> karma - cmn32480: 90
[02:56:02] <Bytram> I through the "Ed Note" was quite well written -- to the point, succinct, and non-apologetic!
[02:56:23] <cmn32480> fair enough
[02:56:35] <cmn32480> and on that ... ahem.. note... off to bed with me
[02:56:37] <Bytram> nagging qurstion, though:
[02:56:39] <Bytram> At least now we'll know who to blame.
[02:56:45] <Bytram> shouldn't that be:
[02:56:48] <Bytram> At least now we'll know whom to blame.
[02:56:58] <cmn32480> the execs who are now, by policy, supposed to review the stories regarding Russia
[02:57:13] * cmn32480 googles
[02:57:18] <Bytram> I bet they just LOVE the extra responsibilities!
[02:58:22] <Bytram> can trim off the introductory phrase, so now we have:
[02:58:30] <Bytram> we'll know who to blame
[02:58:38] <Bytram> expand the contraction
[02:58:44] <Bytram> we will know who to blame
[02:59:00] <cmn32480> https://www.grammarly.com
[02:59:02] <upstart> ^ 03Who or Whom? It’s Not As Hard As You Think | Grammarly
[02:59:02] <Bytram> "we will know" takes a direct object
[02:59:14] <Bytram> that would be: "who to blame"
[02:59:28] <Bytram> clicky
[03:00:19] <cmn32480> I believe that who is correct
[03:01:01] <Bytram> so, we have an objective phrase: "who to blame"
[03:01:16] <Bytram> IOW, to whom should be direct our blame
[03:01:30] <Bytram> so, I would *think* that should be "whom"
[03:01:37] <cmn32480> if the noun gets replaced with "him/her" it ought to be whom
[03:02:09] <Bytram> but, "whom", according to your link, is oftem replaced by just "who" so as to not look so "stodgy"
[03:02:12] <cmn32480> i'll be quite honest, I don't care
[03:02:16] <Bytram> LOL!
[03:02:29] <Bytram> if you did not already ahve an ed not in there, I'd have added it in!
[03:02:31] <cmn32480> Who sounds correct, even if it isn't
[03:02:35] <Bytram> nvm, go to bed.
[03:02:56] <cmn32480> If you think the whom examples sound awkward or prissy, you are not alone. Many people don’t use whom in casual speech or writing. Others use it only in well-established phrases such as “to whom it may concern.” Some people never use it. It’s not unusual at all to hear sentences like these:
[03:03:04] <cmn32480> and now.. I'm out
[03:03:08] <Bytram> nod nod nodding off
[03:03:18] <Bytram> laters, and thanks again!
[03:03:28] <Bytram> is time for me to hit the hay, as well.
[11:14:56] -!- n1 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
[16:43:33] -!- nick [nick!~nick@Soylent/Staff/Editor/n1] has joined #editorial
[16:43:33] -!- mode/#editorial [+v nick] by Hephaestus
[17:46:49] <takyon> I tossed some subs in
[17:47:01] <takyon> a few death threats (?) today
[17:47:05] <takyon> not for me
[22:20:07] <cmn32480> I saw...
[22:20:18] <cmn32480> but Jimmy cracked corn and I just don't care
[22:22:34] <cmn32480> Fnord666++
[22:22:34] <Bender> karma - fnord666: 16