|
|
Posted by dorayme on 07/10/07 03:30
In article <iLCki.5361$4A1.2985@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> > Blinkey's was a lesson (see his "as in") on the use of the
> > apostrophe using a contraction example rather than one of
> > possession.
>
> What?
I just saw the OP seeing the ' in the contraction and getting
confused by the lesson. Let's leave it be.
> > (rf, a couple of things, one of them a 'btw', making it hard to
> > know whether to use a <ul>, an <ol> or neither (what do the standards
> > say?):
>
>
> I would lean for <ul> The two items are totally unrelated to each other so,
> unordered.
That's the way I leaned. There is something more about an ol (not
in your bedtime reading rf) than its parts. There is a sense that
it counts as well as orders. Since I was making a point of having
a couple of points for you...
o never mind... time to stop talking rubbish, my work is done for
the day and the sun is up at last and maybe I will go see if that
groper is there.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|