Looks like its getting really serious....
-
The thread's logic is so dysfunctional , disconnected and dislocated that it is actually funny.
-
When someone says "get in the line", they are talking about getting inside, among the people waiting in line... it has nothing to do with a line on the floor thick or otherwise...Originally posted by CX:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/on
The definition of both words are quite specific... In this case, "on" is more appropriate as a preposition to express the spatial relationship between the mouse cursor and the line.
It is not so appropriate to use "in" because your subject is a "line" on a 2 dimensional surface, which effectively excludes the possibility of the mouse cursor being in a position "within the space, place or limits".
We may, of course, use "in" in the figurative sense, like "get in the line", which is a figure of speech for "queue up", but it is simply not possible to literally "get in the line" unless you're talking about a really thick line drawn on the ground (in any case, it would still be more appropriate to say "get on the line" because the relative position of the person is above the line and not within it).
So in a nutshell, "in" is not appropriate because:
(a) Your subject is an axis on a 2-dimensional surface (the screen).
(b) The axis on the screen cannot be "penetrated" in the spatial sense as the word "in" would imply. Hence, the mouse cursor is "on the line" and not "in the line".
A writer might not know that, but an editor would
You can put a mouse cursor in-between the letters of a sentence... and when you say "in", it gives the reader the appropriate information that he must not click outside "out" of the sentence.
-
... or if the link happens to be an icon or a box, then again it is more appropriate to tell the user to click "in" the icon or "in" the box....
... but as least you did not, like the three idiots (see quote below), try to attack me... but simply laid out your case... and has shown why, reasonably and rationally, you prefer "on" to "in"...
...unfortunately you have limited perception and did not consider "inside" and outside" of a phrase or picture of an icon or a box... which in itself is nothing to lose sleep about...
... what is ridiculous is when idiots try to attack others unawares of their own stupidity...Idiot number 1... Chin Eng... the believer that depends on beliefs because he cannot think...
I wrote "Click in THIS line" and he quoted me as saying "Click in THE line"... and attacked me...
Idiot number 2... deathbait... the idiot I drove insane until he issued empty threats... and made a fool of himself in the process...
... tried to use Chin Eng's backside for his face and made himself a fool by saying "Of all the lost causes you attempt to fight for, this takes the cake. It's "click on the line", end of story. Why are you even attempting to defend this."
Idiot number 3... sgdiehard .... another believer that confirms the fact that many people cling on to beliefs (what others tell them) because they have no abilities to think for themselves...
Some examples...
[quote]Workshop - ChessBase.com
When you double-click in this line, a new screen would appear which looks like this:. 4...bxc6 4...dxc6. And when you double-clicked on either of these two ...
www.chessbase.com/support/workshop.asp?ID=252 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
[DOC]
Agenda for Accessible Word and Acrobat
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
For example, type “Heading 1” and click in this line of text, and go to the Formatting Palette >Styles and select the style of Heading 1 and see the change ...
www.sjsu.edu/cfd/docs/accessible_word_tutoria.doc - Similar pages
List of Payments
If you double click in this line, the original document will be displayed. Amount. Shows the total amount of the individual document. Line Item Text ...
www.finance.utoronto.ca/fast/qrg/rptmd/mgtrpt/pymtlist.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
Mathematica-Compatible Notebook This notebook can be used on any ...
... 0.02]\)], "Input", PageWidth->Infinity], Cell["\<\ Then click in this line and wait for the result of numerical computation. ...
www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mech371/software/PROG5-2.NB - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.owlnet.rice.edu ]
The problem solving problem
For more on curing the "I can't do word problems" syndrome click in this line. The activities book from which the example was adapted (Math Topics, ...
www.hawaii.edu/suremath/mathTopics.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Grossly stupid idiots... trying to argue with a writer about usage of words..
ROFLMAO.... -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Aiyo... I told u liao mah... one is the figurative meaning, one is the literal meaning.
When someone says "get in the line", they are talking about getting inside, among the people waiting in line... it has nothing to do with a line on the floor thick or otherwise...
Your box and icon example crossed my mind too but but as I said, because your subject is still on the surface of a 2-dimensional screen, "on" is still more appropriate, like "click on the icon", "click on the button", etc.
You can put a mouse cursor in-between the letters of a sentence... and when you say "in", it gives the reader the appropriate information that he must not click outside "out" of the sentence.
... or if the link happens to be an icon or a box, then again it is more appropriate to tell the user to click "in" the icon or "in" the box....
... but as least you did not, like the three idiots (see quote below), try to attack me... but simply laid out your case... and has shown why, reasonably and rationally, you prefer "on" to "in"...
...unfortunately you have limited perception and did not consider "inside" and outside" of a phrase or picture of an icon or a box... which in itself is nothing to lose sleep about...
... what is ridiculous is when idiots try to attack others unawares of their own stupidity...
[/b]
The internet isn't exactly a bastion of grammatical excellence... Not like I care anyway, but those who bothered to post here did raise a valid point and "on" is indeed more appropriate than "in".
Your defensiveness is honestly a bit irritating. -
Andrew I am getting really confuse now and I dont know if I should sell hold or buy. how come you stop updating us with daily DJ movement? without you we are lost!!!
HELP HELP HELP!!! -
What defensiveness?Originally posted by CX:Aiyo... I told u liao mah... one is the figurative meaning, one is the literal meaning.
Your box and icon example crossed my mind too but but as I said, because your subject is still on the surface of a 2-dimensional screen, "on" is still more appropriate, like "click on the icon", "click on the button", etc.
The internet isn't exactly a bastion of grammatical excellence... Not like I care anyway, but those who bothered to post here did raise a valid point and "on" is indeed more appropriate than "in".
Your defensiveness is honestly a bit irritating.
If it were your finger (touch screen) then "in" would have been most inappropriate.
Your finger cannot be "in" but the computer mouse cursor is not just figuratively but literally "in" the screen.
If you look carefully at the examples, they are almost exclusively quotes in the context of computer mouse and clicking.
In this context, "in" is more appropriate and as an IT Consultant/programmer, I instinctively use "in" and not "on".
Do you seriously think that you can physically take the mouse cursor off the computer screen?
You seriously lack imagination, and you cannot see that the mouse cursor is not just "on" the screen but is also in fact "in" the screen. Literally -
Rising above....must....refrain...from pointing out....obvious...stupidity....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What defensiveness?
If it were your finger (touch screen) then "in" would have been most inappropriate.
Your finger cannot be "in" but the computer mouse cursor is not just figuratively but literally "in" the screen.
If you look carefully at the examples, they are almost exclusively quotes in the context of computer mouse and clicking.
In this context, "in" is more appropriate and as an IT Consultant/programmer, I instinctively use "in" and not "on".
Do you seriously think that you can physically take the mouse cursor off the computer screen?
You seriously lack imagination, and you cannot see that the mouse cursor is not just "on" the screen but is also in fact "in" the screen. Literally -
I wonder what will happen to Andrew if Moderator decides to remove this thread during the same time when market crashes.
-
If you want to watch a television program, would you say "Lets see what's on tv" or "lets see what's in tv"?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What defensiveness?
If it were your finger (touch screen) then "in" would have been most inappropriate.
Your finger cannot be "in" but the computer mouse cursor is not just figuratively but literally "in" the screen.
If you look carefully at the examples, they are almost exclusively quotes in the context of computer mouse and clicking.
In this context, "in" is more appropriate and as an IT Consultant/programmer, I instinctively use "in" and not "on".
Do you seriously think that you can physically take the mouse cursor off the computer screen?
You seriously lack imagination, and you cannot see that the mouse cursor is not just "on" the screen but is also in fact "in" the screen. Literally
On the tv screen, i see moving images that are the results of a television broadcast displayed through CRT or LCD technology.
In the tv screen, i see the circuitry and the electronic components.
You have already seen my point with your example about your finger: that the penetrative connotation denoted by "in" is inappropriate when used in the context of a 2 dimensional display panel unless u intend to really unscrew the monitor and look inside it.
I am talking exactly about a computer mouse and the act of moving the mouse to direct the mouse cursor to a specific point on the screen.
The spatial relationship between mouse cursor, line and screen is specific and has nothing to do with imagination.
I suppose you use imagination a lot when u write your books, but I guess thats ok if u do manage a best-seller. -
I said you lack imagination because you cannot put yourself inside the shoes of the mouse cursor...Originally posted by CX:If you want to watch a television program, would you say "Lets see what's [b]on tv" or "lets see what's in tv"?
On the tv screen, i see moving images that are the results of a television broadcast displayed through CRT or LCD technology.
In the tv screen, i see the circuitry and the electronic components.
You have already seen my point with your example about your finger: that the penetrative connotation denoted by "in" is inappropriate when used in the context of a 2 dimensional display panel unless u intend to really unscrew the monitor and look inside it.
I am talking exactly about a computer mouse and the act of moving the mouse to direct the mouse cursor to a specific point on the screen
Your use of the TV example is absurd, in the context of your example, a context of moving pictures...
... I am talking exactly about moving the mouse cursor into, inside the phrase or picture or icon, inside the computer screen.... and click the mouse.
... the mouse cursor is inside the screen and is able to embed itself into the pixels and become part of the pixels that make up the phrase or icon... and to click the mouse when the mouse cursor is in and have become part of the line.
... this case is about precision in thought and using the precise word precisely within a certain context...
... something those three idiots can never understand but while you are much better then they are, apparently you have some difficulty in this area as well -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I said you lack imagination because you cannot put yourself inside the shoes of the mouse cursor...
Your use of the TV example is absurd, in the context of your example, a context of moving pictures...
... I am talking exactly about moving the mouse cursor into, inside the phrase or picture or icon, inside the computer screen.... and click the mouse. A mouse cursor is not a sentient being. It is merely a graphical representation on a 2 dimensional display surface. Why should I pretend to be a mouse cursor?
Would I not be better off pretending to be a writer or an IT consultant?
And come now... U can't say that an example is absurd just because it proved the fallacy of your arguments. Give counter-examples. Illustrate your arguments properly. Don't just dismiss things that proves u wrong. Illustrate points to prove me wrong instead.
I keep telling u, there is no spatial "depth" for you to go "into" on a 2 dimensional surface, unless u want to poke a hole in the screen.
... the mouse cursor is inside the screen and is able to embed itself into the pixels and become part of the pixels that make up the phrase or icon... and to click the mouse when the mouse cursor is in and have become part of the line.
A standard HTML hyperlink with a simply "mouseover" effect is most aptly descriped as a line of text that you must place the mouse cursor over and activate with a left click of the mouse. So you are placing the mouse over the text, and clicking on the text.
And mouse cursors do not "embed" themselves into pixels. Mouse cursors on computer screens ARE made up of pixels.
As the mouse cursor moves across the screen, the pixels change colors to illustrate this movement. So by moving the mouse to a position where your line is, the pixels around the line changes into color of your mouse cursor. So your mouse cursor is, in effect, "covering the line", or as you say has become "part of the line".
So the mouse cursor is on top of the line, not inside it.
Any "embeding" you suggest is purely imaginary. But we have long established that you are much more imaginative then me.... this case is about precision in thought and using the precise word precisely within a certain context...
I think what u said is contrary to what u've done. You've mainly allowed your language to become airy-fairy and loose.
... something those three idiots can never understand but while you are much better then they are, apparently you have some difficulty in this area as well
Precision would demand that you use "on" in denoting the specific spatial relationship between a mouse cursor on a screen and the act of clicking on another image, also on the screen. THAT is precision in context. Not just a "certain" context, but a SPECIFIC context. -
Welcome to my world.Originally posted by CX:And come now... U can't say that an example is absurd just because it proved the fallacy of your arguments. Give counter-examples. Illustrate your arguments properly. Don't just dismiss things that proves u wrong. Illustrate points to prove me wrong instead. -
... and who asked you to pretend to be a "mouse cursor"? So you do not know how to imagine... and you think that to imagine is to pretend?Originally posted by CX: A mouse cursor is not a sentient being. It is merely a graphical representation on a 2 dimensional display surface. Why should I pretend to be a mouse cursor?
If someone asks you to imagine that you are a surgeon, to put yourself in the surgeon's shoes, the person is asking you to "pretend" to be a surgeon?
In your mind he is asking you to put on a surgical gown and operate on someone?
You are confused about how something can go into a two dimensional "object" like a picture. It need not be three dimensional.Originally posted by CX:I keep telling u, there is no spatial "depth" for you to go "into" on a 2 dimensional surface, unless u want to poke a hole in the screen.
For example, you can say, the house is in the picture.
Now how does a house get into a picture when according to you it is impossible because there is "no depth"?
Is it literally in the picture or figuratively in the picture?
Of course it is literally in the picture, because it is part of the picture...
Similarly the computer mouse cursor is in the picture, and it changes location while it remains in the picture that is displayed on the screen.
While people say "let's see what's on TV" they would say, "the monster in that scene was scary"
Nobody except maybe weirdos like yourself would say, "the monster on the scene was horrible"
... and because they ARE pixels... the mouse pixels become embedded into the pixels that make up the icons or representations on the screen, the mouse pixels are "surrounded" or "embedded" into the pixels that make up the representations or icon or words. The mouse pixels become a part of the "icon". The mouse cursor is "in" the icon and at no time is it "on" the icon.Originally posted by CX:And mouse cursors do not "embed" themselves into pixels. Mouse cursors on computer screens ARE made up of pixels.
The mouse cursor does not go on top of the "icon" in a computer screen. It replaces the pixels that makes up the icon on the spot where it is at and the pixels that originally made up the icon does not remain under the mouse pixels.
Only a person that lacks imagination is stupid enough would think that the original pixels that made up the picture are somehow under the mouse pixels instead of being replaced by the mouse pixels.
The reality is that the mouse is never on anything that makes up the image on a computer screen and is always in the image, just as a monster is in the movie scene and never on the movie scene.Originally posted by CX:I think what u said is contrary to what u've done. You've mainly allowed your language to become airy-fairy and loose.
Precision would demand that you use "on" in denoting the specific spatial relationship between a mouse cursor on a screen and the act of clicking on another image, also on the screen. THAT is precision in context. Not just a "certain" context, but a SPECIFIC context.
To think otherwise is to be imprecise and living with an optical illusion.
Only a person that does not recognize the delusions and illusions in his head would say that the mouse cursor is "on" rather than "in" the image that people see. -
... and your little dig about people pretending to be a writer and IT Consultant? That shows what sort of thinker you are... one that does not go with the evidence that is displayed for all to see in my website and instead chooses to go with the delusions and illusions in your own head...
-
I think these recent posts of Andrew's is ample proof that if he accidentally said the earth was flat, he would deny the spherical nature of the planet to his death.
-
Andrew, DJ doing quite well over the last 2 days leh..is that the reason why you have been very very quite at 5.00 in the morning? I really miss you morning news.
-
he's now concentrating on "in" and "on".Originally posted by Gazelle:Andrew, DJ doing quite well over the last 2 days leh..is that the reason why you have been very very quite at 5.00 in the morning? I really miss you morning news.
That's more impt than the JW doing well over the last 2 days. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:my grandfather is Lee Kwan Yew. Can I expect you to believe me?
Originally posted by Gazelle:I got my information from LKY. -
Originally posted by eagle:everyday so busy
first homework, then proj work, then gf...............Originally posted by eagle:what would you do to hold on to your girl/guy?
I know who is eagle!!!Originally posted by eagle:Who has heard of eagle...Pls raise hand. -
coolie... its the holidays seasons... relax...Originally posted by Gazelle:Andrew I am getting really confuse now and I dont know if I should sell hold or buy. how come you stop updating us with daily DJ movement? without you we are lost!!!
HELP HELP HELP!!!
Bush has announced a plan to tackle the housing debt problem.
The 1st world democracies in Europe had pushed their currencies to record highs against the US$
The coolie democracies in Asia are supporting the US$, and causing massive inflation like in Singapore... while the US and the other 1st world democracies continue to party like there is no tomorrow and they have no choice because they are coolie economies, and as a coolie yourself, you should understand their mentality... -
Evidence of existence does not equal evidence of substance. Your website's not worth the bandwidth.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and your little dig about people pretending to be a writer and IT Consultant? That shows what sort of thinker you are... one that does not go with the evidence that is displayed for all to see in my website and instead chooses to go with the delusions and illusions in your own head...
And wait a second... illusions? delusions? I... am ... incapable of such functions... I... do... not... have... imagination...
Since i'm such a painfully literal person that lacks imagination, I think I'll leave you to the illusions and delusions instead... You seem to be doing quite well on that front already.
I will no longer reply to your posts. I'm already sufficiently amused by your "interesting" views on the english language. -
...so, after my initial hope that you are of a better quality than the three idiots, it turns out that you cannot even see that the computer mouse is "in" the image that makes up what you see on the computer screen and is not "on" the image and any perception of it being "on" the image is but an optical illusion... and for someone that prefers to go with an optical illusion instead of reality...Originally posted by CX:Evidence of existence does not equal evidence of substance. Your website's not worth the bandwidth.
And wait a second... illusions? delusions? I... am ... incapable of such functions... I... do... not... have... imagination...
Since i'm such a painfully literal person that lacks imagination, I think I'll leave you to the illusions and delusions instead... You seem to be doing quite well on that front already.
I will no longer reply to your posts. I'm already sufficiently amused by your "interesting" views on the english language.
... that makes you another delusional.... -
So Andrew only report bad news lah...or should I say news which support his argument that market will crash..any other news are irrelevent?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:coolie... its the holidays seasons... relax...
Bush has announced a plan to tackle the housing debt problem.
The 1st world democracies in Europe had pushed their currencies to record highs against the US$
The coolie democracies in Asia are supporting the US$, and causing massive inflation like in Singapore... while the US and the other 1st world democracies continue to party like there is no tomorrow and they have no choice because they are coolie economies, and as a coolie yourself, you should understand their mentality... -
-