Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com.
Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
If you wish to change your username, please ask via conversation to tehelgee instead of asking via my profile. I'd like to not clutter it up with such requests.
It's a very literal interpretation of the definition in several dictionaries, that misses the context and history of those definitions. Technically valid, but practically at least incomplete.
Specifically, in the past, once something was published it was essentially impossible to get a corrected version out, so initially separate pamphlets of corrections ("erratum") would be sent out if it was sufficiently important. Often, these would be sent out by people other than the original publisher, as a "that guy was wrong, it's actually this" sort of thing (yes, that happened before the internet).
Later, when multiple printings of the same book became more common, and it was easier to correct stuff, there started to be a trend to include Errata lists _in_ the published book saying "the previous printing needed these corrections".
But technically, _any_ list of "corrections to something that's already out there and public" count as "Errata".
No new definition.
Swift said my reading wasn't what he meant, and he meant <something else> i.e. errata. I pointed out I'm using a stable version, so his intent doesn't matter compared to the text, just fix it in the unstable.
Then I got dogpiled by assholes insisting my reading was wrong because of that errata, and my claims of adhering to that stable version were lies. i.e. excessively aggressive errata.
Comments on Profile Post by Priapus