Has there been ANY serious thought on C&F?Steve Bliven wrote:Has there been any serious thought given to changing the name of this forum to comport with OAIM?
Best wushes.
Steve
We're more likely to compôte than comport.
It's "whush", not "wush"
Has there been ANY serious thought on C&F?Steve Bliven wrote:Has there been any serious thought given to changing the name of this forum to comport with OAIM?
Best wushes.
Steve
Enough to keep things just this side of a Mad Hatter's tea party.kkrell wrote:Has there been ANY serious thought on C&F?
They used all sides.Nanohedron wrote:Enough to keep things just this side of a Mad Hatter's tea party.kkrell wrote:Has there been ANY serious thought on C&F?
The construction of the site is all well and good... but one can have a pretty site for a terrible product. It's their knowledge of the instrument that I would be concerned about with this error. It would be like expecting me to take piano lessons from someone who has a website that labels the keys incorrectly, or violin lessons from someone whose site doesn't know which strings the instrument has. I'm assuming the webmasters are just publishing what they were given, not expected to come up with the informational matter itself-- why would they be? So I'm not inclined to fault the site designers for this, which is why it's concerning... (Also the fact that apparently they did not check over the finished product and catch the error? No one from OAIM has looked over the site since it was created??)stiofan wrote:Oh my... As a former copy editor, I have to say this makes me cringe more than just a wee bit. I can't begin to imagine who could have made such a mess of things.
I've been using OAIM for flute instruction over the past several months and have found the site very user-friendly and professionally designed, so this seems to be an anomaly.
Anyone like to volunteer to inform the OAIM webmaster?
I'm afraid I wouldn't have such blind faith. But it's possible that Quality Control missed it; it took me a bit of looking around on the website before I found the page in question for myself; there happen to be two disparate pages on whistle tutelage, for some reason.Katharine wrote:Also the fact that apparently they did not check over the finished product and catch the error? No one from OAIM has looked over the site since it was created??
I thought so too, but could hardly be bothered to say ...Mr.Gumby wrote:I have known people to refer to this site as 'chafing nipple'. Has anyone considered the possibility the guys at OAIM are just taking the mickey?
I would have also accepted the "Chip and Dipple". I think the "Chaffing Nipple" is and accordion forum.Mr.Gumby wrote:I have known people to refer to this site as 'chafing nipple'. Has anyone considered the possibility the guys at OAIM are just taking the mickey?
People have toyed with the Board's name for various reasons and inspirations since time immemorial - if I had a mild head cold, I might log in to Drip & Sniffle - but what's missing on that page is any sort of context necessary for us to know that what only looks like a typo is in fact purposeful. So: no. It doesn't deserve even that much. If the purpose is humor, the writer's way out of their depth, and to be brutally honest, they should leave the creative editorializing to their betters.Mr.Gumby wrote:I have known people to refer to this site as 'chafing nipple'. Has anyone considered the possibility the guys at OAIM are just taking the mickey?
Aw, crap. This is like murder hornets on the loose.Greenfire wrote:It was the whistle anatomy on the page that brought it to my attention, as another whistle site using it for their definitions, and posted the definition of chiff based on the photo shared. When someone questioned their use of it, they linked that page, I couldn't help noticing the hilarious typo.
I'd thought of that possibility, but the page in question is buried pretty deep.Mr.Gumby wrote:I have known people to refer to this site as 'chafing nipple'. Has anyone considered the possibility the guys at OAIM are just taking the mickey?
I dunno ... isn't that sort of like demanding respect for a backyard superhero?whistlecollector wrote:Naturally, I excoriated them for blatant disrespect ...
Precisely what's being attempted, here's the reddit post where I originally saw the link that had the fun spoonerism, but the chap is fully intending to put the hammered out once and for all definitions out there.ytliek wrote: So let us hammer it out once and for all the definitions
It must be true... it is on the internet!