Assume v. Presume

[Deleted member 473]

Black Hole! Stop eating our arguments!

 

[Black Hole]

:BURP:

 

[MikeSh]

Non Sequitur Comic Strip, 30 March 2015

 

[prpr]

so reverting back is not an issue

Why do people say this? You can't revert forward, can you (rhet.). It's a tautology. Revert means to go back.

 

[gomezz]

Yes you can. You can revert back to the old version until you have sorted problems with the new version then revert forward to it.

 

[Black Hole]

I think the real point is that the word "revert" does not require any qualification. "Revert back" is the same as "revert", and "revert forward" is an artificial case where the context is restored to the state it was in at a previous time but which happens to be regarded as forward development (in some manner) from the point of view of its current state.

Editorially, if an author finds it necessary to qualify "revert" (in anything other than poetic licence) it's the wrong choice of word in the first place.

 

[EEPhil]

Surely this is "revert back to the new version" or "re-install the new version" not "revert forward"?
"... and don't call me Shirley".

 

[Black Hole]

Saw that one coming did you?

 

[EEPhil]

Saw that one coming did you?

Oh yes!

 

[gomezz]

The revert is chronological. The backward or forward refers to the state.

 

[prpr]

The revert is chronological.

Er, no, it isn't. Suggest you consult a dictionary.

 

[gomezz]

It is in the context in which I was using it.

 

[prpr]

It is in the context in which I was using it.

I don't care about your context and nor does the dictionary. You are still wrong. Just man up and admit it, rather than constantly trying to define your own rules FFS.

 

[gomezz]

Suggest you consult a basic grammar book about the use of adverbs.

 

[Black Hole]

I'm afraid I'm not psychic, so I would concur with BH's suggestion.

You would? Under what circumstances? (Sorry, I seem to have strayed into AvP territory!)

It is incomparably faster - a 12o minute video took 28 seconds vs around 14 minutes using the sidecar on the Humax

'course it's not incomparable - you just compared it.

Picky today aren't we?

Sorry about that, I've been editing some stuff and I'm in 'spot the stupid use of English' mode.

The gratuitous unnecessary insertion of "would" has been triggering my alarm button for some time.

"I would suggest..." implies there is some unstated condition, in which case why has the condition been omitted? It's like the writer is trying to abdicate responsibility for the suggestion.

 

[Trev]

But it wasn't "I would suggest" it was "I would concur". However, it still implies ......
Perhaps the unstated condition was that it is unlikely that prpr would concur with BH's suggestion, but if he were to do so, he would concur. Or perhaps it meant that he would if he were psychic.
Or perhaps he just got his DHCPs and DNLAs confused. Oh no, that was me.

 

[Black Hole]

"I would suggest..." is the more common (but not by any means the exclusive) constellation.

"(if I were in your position) I would do..." is okay (in my book), the bracketed section is usually omitted as implied. "I suggest you do..." is okay, because it is only a suggestion and to omit the indication of suggestion would appear authoritarian. "I would suggest..." is a confused mixture of the two!

 

[prpr]

It's like the writer is trying to abdicate responsibility for the suggestion.

Maybe I was

 

[Black Hole]

Oh dear...

 

[Trev]

What's wrong wit that? It's the bank holiday's coffee isn't it?
Cretins.