|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
| Not for the linguisticly challenged |
by Dok |
2002-12-29 05:08:22 |
Ok, just got a bit of "Pay off your mortage" SPAM, nothing unusual, but it had a rather weird ending to it.
After the last bit of real info was this:
It is assumed that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On the other hand, a large proportion of interface coordination communication seems to me to be weakly equivalent to the sophisticated hardware. It should be noted that any associated supporting element is a notational variant of Krapp's Last Tape. Nevertheless, any associated supporting element raises serious doubts about the total configurational rationale. In particular, the characterization of specific criteria suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Although this approach has a certain attractiveness, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial adds overriding performance constraints to the evolution of specifications over a given time period. Analogously, the incorporation of additional mission constraints presents extremely interesting challenges to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).
WTF? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Translation | by Spisefisken | 2002-12-29 05:09:52 |
|
Correction | by LionsPhil | 2002-12-29 16:13:04 |
|
Virtual gibberish, indeed | by fjgumby | 2002-12-29 05:16:10 |
|
Or to defeat checksum comparisons (n/t) | by skeptic | 2002-12-29 06:02:41 |
|
Quite simple, really... | by glenalec | 2002-12-29 06:04:28 |
|
Good heavens, can't you see? | by bugarup | 2002-12-29 06:50:24 |
|
It's the Postmodernism Generator, silly. 8) (n/t) | by LionsPhil | 2002-12-29 16:14:09 |
|
It's very simple | by rapido75 | 2002-12-29 19:21:38 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
