|
| Authored by: greed on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
And geeks who know humans don't understand it--when we affirm a negative
question to confirm it--try and remember to say, "That's right, they did
not have a full stack".
When the going gets tough... change the problem.
I'm still never sure when "next weekend" is, though.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AMackenzie on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
A normal person wouldn't admit to "not having a full stack", since it
sounds like "only half a shilling" or "got off at Paisley"
or "only firing on two cylinders" or any number of such expressions.
:-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 08:44 AM EDT |
In court, above all, I would answer the question that is asked, rather than the
one that is implied. You might say geekish, I will say accurate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
That does not sound particularly geeky, to me.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
