Originally posted by EvilAngel
Typical Americans, butchering our language.... (joke)No.
You can't say "one of them work one of them don't"
Use none where you would use one.
All those lights on the table, none of them works.
It's like people who say between you and I thinking their being impressive. When it's actually between you and me.
For example, "Twenty people tried to reach the trophy, but none of them were successful" is just as correct as "but none of them was successful."
Also, me/I is easily determined by taking "you" out of the phrase. Thus; (You and) I go there, but they saw (you and) me.
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Typical Americans, butchering our language.... (joke)No.
You can't say "one of them work one of them don't"
Use none where you would use one.
All those lights on the table, none of them works.
It's like people who say between you and I thinking their being impressive. When it's actually between you and me.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310123933AApO2o3
And here's a discussion on the subject.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1238872
Personally, I would say "none of them work" is the more flowing form. But really you could, potentially, say both.
Originally posted by NemeBro
You know, instead of getting all butthurt, you could just admit you were wrong like I did.Admit you were wrong about your usage of an ad hominem fallacy.
Also, you are incorrect, I outright provided the definition from your own site and explained why you were using the term wrong, that is not an ad hominem, that was a statement after I proved my case.
Stop committing the fallacy fallacy please. Look it up in your little site to find out what that is.
Also, Bardock, I am far above average intelligence, that is why I can talk about how awesomely intelligent I am. 131
Few statements, I just showed you where you made the ad hominem, stop denying
youve proved nothing, it was part of your case, infact whats worse is that you used an ad hominem to tried to imply your case was proven anyway. so thats like an ad hominem placed on top of an ad hominem....
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Uh-huh. If you were a person of "above above average" intelligence, one would think you'd be able to write properly in the language of the country you live in.I've heard the "I don't care about writing properly on the internet" argument before, and it is quite simply a load. Intelligent people use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation simply because that's how it's meant to be done.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "higher level" of fact and falsehood. Things are either fact, or they are not. There are no shades of grey in a subject's absolute state.
You are not comprehending the very base of the principle. Occam's Razor contains no assumptions. It is the concept and guideline that the theory with the least assumptions is most likely true. The theories themselves use a baseline of average persons without ulterior motives. That is the basis established through sociology. So if you want to say that decades of professional scientific research are incorrect, be my guest, but if you do so no one can be faulted for calling you a moron.
You do not reject lack of logic. You simmer in it. With chopped carrots and celery.
This has been covered, bothering to use the perfect grammar is not required to be intelligent or even reflect on anyone at all, more important is the fact you have to bring it up to discredit me, which shows you are running out of real arguments, not that youve actually made one so far.
The probability theory that you are using does not work for you, nor does it work in practic in this argument, you bringing up Occam's Razor wasa very poor and obvious red herring, a rather pathetic and useless theory you had to throw in.
Originally posted by k1Lla441
Umm.. because i know them? i know how they talk, debate, how they use reason. The odds that every single person out of the 50 all have a vendetta against you and are not really just tired of your debating is low. really low. You keep using these "ifs" and "buts" in the fact that you cant except that some of those people just dont like the way you argue.Yes, you are assuming everything, unless someone from the past actually told you that they have a grudge against you and will always cause conflict by not agreeing with you no matter what the circumstances, then yes, you are assuming. Please, dont flatter yourself, even if you did annoy someone in the past, it doesnt automatically mean that they'll stop using logic in debates and go against you for no real reason.
Please, dont tell me how little i know, you cant understand a simple thing gk has explained. Go right on ahead and say your right, i couldnt care less if you want to make yourself look even more idiotic.
No you do not...
There is no 50 people in the true argument, probably closer to 6/7
It also means they will use logic and forget the past, your argument falls apart here.
I can tell you what I want, I dont just "think" you know little I know you know little.
Originally posted by k1Lla441
Umm.. because i know them? i know how they talk, debate, how they use reason. The odds that every single person out of the 50 all have a vendetta against you and are not really just tired of your debating is low. really low. You keep using these "ifs" and "buts" in the fact that you cant except that some of those people just dont like the way you argue.Yes, you are assuming everything, unless someone from the past actually told you that they have a grudge against you and will always cause conflict by not agreeing with you no matter what the circumstances, then yes, you are assuming. Please, dont flatter yourself, even if you did annoy someone in the past, it doesnt automatically mean that they'll stop using logic in debates and go against you for no real reason.
Please, dont tell me how little i know, you cant understand a simple thing gk has explained. Go right on ahead and say your right, i couldnt care less if you want to make yourself look even more idiotic.
No you dont...
Theres no 50 people in the true argument, probably closer to 6/7
Originally posted by k1Lla441
Umm.. because i know them? i know how they talk, debate, how they use reason. The odds that every single person out of the 50 all have a vendetta against you and are not really just tired of your debating is low. really low. You keep using these "ifs" and "buts" in the fact that you cant except that some of those people just dont like the way you argue.Yes, you are assuming everything, unless someone from the past actually told you that they have a grudge against you and will always cause conflict by not agreeing with you no matter what the circumstances, then yes, you are assuming. Please, dont flatter yourself, even if you did annoy someone in the past, it doesnt automatically mean that they'll stop using logic in debates and go against you for no real reason.
Please, dont tell me how little i know, you cant understand a simple thing gk has explained. Go right on ahead and say your right, i couldnt care less if you want to make yourself look even more idiotic.
No you do not...
There is no 50 people in the true argument, probably closer to 6/7
It also means they will use logic and forget the past, your argument falls apart here.
I can tell you what I want, I dont just "think" you know little I know you know little.
hmm damn, this one and the one above require to be deleted, seems I cannot do it myself 🙁
Originally posted by Bardock42
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310123933AApO2o3And here's a discussion on the subject.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1238872
Personally, I would say "none of them work" is the more flowing form. But really you could, potentially, say both.
Interesting. But no, that is incorrect.
None is a word formed from the latin words not and one. It is only truly usuable in those situations where you mean 'Not one'
Yes, it is debated you can use it otherwise, but it's just a myth. You'll see allot of people say otherwise yet notice no examples given in old english. That would be because it's not correct, and you can't do that. It's a funny word with it's own set of rules, which is why so many people are confused. Having watched the video in the link i can confirm Steven Fry is 100% correct.
Don't be tempted to connect it to other words of the same meaning either, because it is a funny word with it's own set of rules. For example a popular comparison is Police. But i assure you it's not the same.
Now, here's the fun. According to most dictionaries; both indeed are correct, and you can bet you won't use marks on an english paper for "None of them work" either. However, it is actually wrong and there is only one correct usage of the word.
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Oh SAM!!!!!!!!Posting in my profile while i wasn't looking, idiot.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
boring. he didnt even throw his hat up he just cried like a *****. 😂
Originally posted by NemeBro
On a similar note, Star Fox 64 is one of the greatest games ever made.
Shoot the tentacles to open the core!
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Interesting. But no, that is incorrect.None is a word formed from the latin words not and one. It is only truly usuable in those situations where you mean 'Not one'
Yes, it is debated you can use it otherwise, but it's just a myth. You'll see allot of people say otherwise yet notice no examples given in old english. That would be because it's not correct, and you can't do that. It's a funny word with it's own set of rules, which is why so many people are confused. Having watched the video in the link i can confirm Steven Fry is 100% correct.
Don't be tempted to connect it to other words of the same meaning either, because it is a funny word with it's own set of rules. For example a popular comparison is Police. But i assure you it's not the same.
Now, here's the fun. According to most dictionaries; both indeed are correct, and you can bet you won't use marks on an english paper for "None of them work" either. However, it is actually wrong and there is only one correct usage of the word.
No, it is not incorrect. The fact is that some indefinite pronouns, "none" amongst them, can be either singular or plural depending on the noun or pronoun they refer to. In a case where you can exchange "not one" for "none" you can do so, but based on the two rules, in this case truly both is acceptable.
Your point about Latin is just silly, btw.
Not that there is a absolute rule in English anyways, the language developes on its own. So again, your point that it is incorrect to use it, doesn't make much sense.
[edit] Maybe it would help you to recall that "none" does not only mean "not one" but also "not any" as well as "nothing. It's its own word, not only based on its "not one" roots.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it is not incorrect. The fact is that some indefinite pronouns, "none" amongst them, can be either singular or plural depending on the noun or pronoun they refer to. In a case where you can exchange "not one" for "none" you can do so, but based on the two rules, in this case truly both is acceptable.Your point about Latin is just silly, btw.
Not that there is a absolute rule in English anyways, the language developes on its own. So again, your point that it is incorrect to use it, doesn't make much sense.
[edit] Maybe it would help you to recall that "none" does not only mean "not one" but also "not any" as well as "nothing. It's its own word, not only based on its "not one" roots.
What do you mean it's silly? I'm just reminding you of the word origin. It is made from those two words, the word means "Not one". I don't understand why that is silly.
"None of them work"
Is the same as
"Not one of them work"
As i said before, you can't say
"One of them work, one of them don't"
It doesn't make sense and is wrong.
"One of them works, one of them doesn't"
Is correct.
The language has rules, they are just infinitely more complex than other languages.
I don't grasp the relevence for the alternate meanings of the word. In a sentence when the word none means "Not One" there is only one way to use it. I never mentioned the other definitions. Let's use them in our example just incase that is what you meant
"Not any of them works"
"Nothing works"
so it's
"None of them works"
Understand?