I Bought Intel Friends Tell me AMD better...

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Genius, you have to be a member to see oxford english dictionary online. But since you already searched it (according to your earlier post) I'm sure you know that.

HUH?

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Genius, you have to be a member to see oxford english dictionary online. But since you already searched it (according to your earlier post) I'm sure you know that.

Here is a summarization of the page found in Oxford english about the developing of new Abbr. due to text messaging.

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/emoticons/

OMG!!!! You're right! Link it, because I can see it!

 

[Lithan]

Are you even looking at the links you post?


You couldn't see it if I did link it. That is because it is a subscription based service. We've been over this.


Big thumbs up for posting a link you hadn't even looked at to try and prove me wrong when it actually took you to a page informing you that you needed a subscription though.

 

[Lithan]

[/quote]Gururu


yea, don't even try it in the oxford dictionary, it does worse than Webster when searching for LOL..[/quote]



If you aren't a member, how exactly did you manage this search now?

 

[gururu]

Oh Lithan, you ALMOST had me. But alas, I'm disappointed.

LOL is listed under: Abbreviations

LOL is NOT referred to as a 'word' or 'acronym' ANYWHERE on this site.

The defintion of abbreviation is:

1. The act of shortening, reducing in length.
2. The result of abbreviating; an abbreviated or reduced form; short summary, abridgement
3. esp. A shortened form of a spoken word, or written symbol; a part of a word or symbol standing for the whole

Lithan, you misuse the information available to you.

 

[ramj70]

Thought this part on their site was funny coming from the spelling people

The vocabulary, syntax, and style of electronic text communication is much more fluid thatn that found in formal writing, and may also be highly personalized. Electronic communication is typically very informal in nature and characterized by many features more often found in conversational speech.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Lithan

Gururu


yea, don't even try it in the oxford dictionary, it does worse than Webster when searching for LOL..[/quote]



If you aren't a member, how exactly did you manage this search now?[/quote]


my university gets a subscription. I was unaware of that.

 

[Lithan]

Gururu. How many times do I have to explain this to you. An acronym is a word. "LOL" is an acronym. Because it is formed from the first letter/s in the words forming a phrase that means that it is a word. This is sixth to eighth grade english lesson here.

How in god's name did you get a high enough SAT score to get into university without knowing what an acronym is?

And if you in fact did have a subscription your search would have found results for LOL.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: gururu
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

Oxford does not list LOL as a word in their dictionary either.

 

[Lithan]

It is in oxford english (which you lied and continue to lie about). It is in no less than two other dictionaries. And again it is an acronym. In laymans terms (or university students terms), if an abbreviation for a phrase is formed from the first letter/s of the words within that phrase it is an acronym.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Lithan
It is in oxford english (which you lied and continue to lie about). It is in no less than two other dictionaries. And again is is an acronym. In laymans terms (or university students terms), if an abbreviation for a phrase is fromed from the first letter/s of the words within that phrase it is an acronym.

I haven't lied, but interesting that you've already resorted to calling me and keys 'einstein', 'genius', 'stupid' and now 'liar'. It's too bad your credibility has nowhere lower to go. I mentioned that Oxford fared worse than Webster when finding LOL. And it does. For those that cannot access Oxford, If you type in 'LOL' in word find, it brings up 'tol de rol lol'.

next, you'll be saying that 'fromed' is a word.

 

[Lithan]

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-...=cnet&st.ne.fd.mdh

Article talking about (and linking to) the oxford english dictionary. I quote.. "Another popular email term, "LOL," is defined as an "abbreviation for laughing (or laugh) out loud (used in email).""

Oh no? I've proven you lying again? Any typo's you can critique?

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Lithan my fine friend why is it so important that he says he is wrong? If you believe you are right let us move on. This argument is amazing.

Person 1 What color is the sky?
Person 2 Blue
Person 1 You are wrong it is sea-blue.
Person 2 No, you are wrong it is blue.
Person 1 Scientific American states that the sky is sea-blue so therefore it must be sea-blue.
Person 2 Scientific North American states the sky as blue so therefore it must be blue
Person 1 Scientific America states the sky is sea-blue and has evidence to prove it so it must be sea-blue (Link)
Person 2 You are wrong and stupid to boot. The sky color is obviously defined as blue per pertinent evidence of scientific journal (Link)
Person 1 You are obviously retarded because the link you gave me is from the World to Define the Sky as Blue Foundation and is biased
Person 2 You are the child of a goat and pig crossbreed because all you do is attack me because you have no case
Person 1 How does that answer my charge, retard?
Person 2 Tell me where you live and we can settle this for real Pigoat Boy
Person 1 Bring it on and I will cap your sorry (insert expletives) self

What was the original point of contention again

 

[mnarciso]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: Lithan
It is in oxford english (which you lied and continue to lie about). It is in no less than two other dictionaries. And again is is an acronym. In laymans terms (or university students terms), if an abbreviation for a phrase is fromed from the first letter/s of the words within that phrase it is an acronym.

I haven't lied, but interesting that you've already resorted to calling me and keys 'einstein', 'genius', 'stupid' and now 'liar'. It's too bad your credibility has nowhere lower to go. I mentioned that Oxford fared worse than Webster when finding LOL. And it does. For those that cannot access Oxford, If you type in 'LOL' in word find, it brings up 'tol de rol lol'.

next, you'll be saying that 'fromed' is a word.

Yes, I'm sorry Lithan but in this part I have to agree with Gururu about the einstein, genius, and stupid part. The conversation is interesting up to the point where people are insulting each other. Its nice to read this kind of discussion but we don't need to be calling each other stupid.

 

[Lithan]

Except michael, he said that "LOL" is not a word. I proved it to be a word. He said I needed to prove it with only two allowable sources (extremely limiting under any circumstances). I did so. He demanded another form of proof (even though it's absence would prove only that the dictionaries hadn't updated recently enough as following other definitions it is absolute that "LOL" is a word according to even those two dictionarys*.) I provided it. He lied and said it wasn't there. I proved he was lying. He attacked a typo.


Mnarciso, I grow irrititated when someone intentionally tells lies. Flat out proven lies. To attempt to discredit me because he assumes I do not have the means to show him for the liar that he is. I have done so now. I actually am eager to see how he responds.

*Previous to this edition the last update to the Oxford english dictionary was in 1983.

 

[gururu]

Lithan, I'm sorry, I must bow out of this discussion. I am enjoying this too much, perhaps at your expense. It was not my desire to make you feel bad, angry, or defensive. Your accusations have led me to believe this is the case. Anyway, no hard feelings. LOL may be a word some day, and I certainly won't lobby against it.

 

[Lithan]

Bow out? I've proven you are lying. There is no bowing out. There is plain old ordinary getting proven wrong and a liar. Enjoy it.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Except michael, he said that "LOL" is not a word. I proved it to be a word. He said I needed to prove it with only two allowable sources (extremely limiting under any circumstances). I did so. He demanded another form of proof (even though it's absence would prove only that the dictionaries hadn't updated recently enough as following other definitions it is absolute that "LOL" is a word according to even those two dictionarys*.) I provided it. He lied and said it wasn't there. I proved he was lying. He attacked a typo.


Mnarciso, I grow irrititated when someone intentionally tells lies. Flat out proven lies. To attempt to discredit me because he assumes I do not have the means to show him for the liar that he is. I have done so now. I actually am eager to see how he responds.

*Previous to this edition the last update to the Oxford english dictionary was in 1983.

Why do you have to prove he is a liar? What gain does this give you? You have not and will not convince him regardless of the facts you provide so why this war?

How about if we decide to make LOL (or more accurately L.O.L.)both a word and a potential word. This would make both of you right and both of you wrong and together would make both of you happy and both of you sad and after all that you would come back to where you were before this event took place. Hopefully a happy place ehhh .... ummm .... LOL?

 

[Lithan]

I work from time to time as an editor. By attacking my grammar he attacks my competency at my job. That does not sit well with me. Imagine if a paraplegic were to tell Michael Johnson that he didn't know how to run. I'd imagine Johnson would do a nineteen second 200. I did the equivalent and he lied to try and save face. I find that behavior as well as his (undeserved) cocky attitude offensive. He's the typical college brat who thinks he's hot s*** because he can waste a few years pretending he's learning something.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

So, he thinks he is hot s***. This is about what he thinks. What does him thinking he is hot s*** have to do with the rightness (or wrongness of your point)? This is like convincing Hitler he was wrong to kill Jews. Why try the impossible at the expense of your sanity? You know he was/is proven wrong at this particular point (in your frame of reference) so that is all you need to know, right? Why call him a college brat? How does that advance your emotional state? How does this advance your rightness more than it is? If you are right and ignore his jabs and laugh how does calling him a college brat make your right more right? It can't Once you prove someone is innaccurate than trying to convince them further is like trying to convince Jerry Falwell Allah is the true name of God. It won't happen.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Lithan
I work from time to time as an editor. By attacking my grammar he attacks my competency at my job. That does not sit well with me. Imagine if a paraplegic were to tell Michael Johnson that he didn't know how to run. I'd imagine Johnson would do a nineteen second 200. I did the equivalent and he lied to try and save face. I find that behavior as well as his (undeserved) cocky attitude offensive. He's the typical college brat who thinks he's hot s*** because he can waste a few years pretending he's learning something.

You don't happen to speak Klingon, do you Lithian?

 

[Avalon]

I love how people always say they enjoy arguing like that when they sound agitated.

 

[mnarciso]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Lithan
I work from time to time as an editor. By attacking my grammar he attacks my competency at my job. That does not sit well with me. Imagine if a paraplegic were to tell Michael Johnson that he didn't know how to run. I'd imagine Johnson would do a nineteen second 200. I did the equivalent and he lied to try and save face. I find that behavior as well as his (undeserved) cocky attitude offensive. He's the typical college brat who thinks he's hot s*** because he can waste a few years pretending he's learning something.

You don't happen to speak Klingon, do you Lithian?

haha Klingon... that reminds me of the Knight scene in the movie 'Garden State' wow what a great movie.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Vee
Sorry for the outburst. But this forum and even AT articles are full of that silly upgrade path nonsens. And I guess it kind of annoys me. Just buy balanced components, and value. And look for a video upgrade, and possibly ram expansion in the future. That's it.

The CPU is the single system component that gives the greatest speed increase for the dollar for many users, myself included. The renderings I do are almost entirely CPU-bound. The option to simply drop in something faster means a huge deal to me.

The simple fact that you point out other upgrade options means that you realize the importance of upgradeability. A CPU upgrade is just as simple as a RAM upgrade, but in many cases it will give you a much greater performance boost.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: w00t
let say u have a p4 3.0C and a p4 3.0E? u think the p4 3.0E is better because it has more cache but if you think so you are wrong the northwood is better look at the benchmarks they dont lie like apple

but dude dont worry about it i think u have crap u should see mine
in cs i cant even get a steady 4 fps smoke omg kills me i get 3 - 5 fps when i go into it this pc was given to me so i dont care its a celeron! for gosh sakes i posted a question too for my pc

There there. My first PC was a Cyrix 166+ w/ a 1MB PCI card if it makes you feel any better. It could barely run Duke Nukem 3D at 320x240.

You'll have a monster someday, especially if you keep posting at AT. :beer: