http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
Edited by brando090, 14 May 2013 - 07:53 PM.
Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:20 AM
Edited by brando090, 14 May 2013 - 07:53 PM.
Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:40 AM
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago).
http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:12 PM
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regardsI was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
Edited by Inkysloth, 14 May 2013 - 02:21 PM.
Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:54 PM
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago).
http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school...
regards
Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:18 PM
Fixed?...
MIT would be great, they encompass all the careers I'm looking into. University of Chicago is also in the realm
Edited by Inkysloth, 14 May 2013 - 08:21 PM.
Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:55 PM
Fixed?...
MIT would be great, they encompass all the careers I'm looking into. University of Chicago is also in the realm
Nearly!
"I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I would otherwise have never known prior to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and their current values (given these auctions were from time ago)2."
1) would otherwise have never known prior OR, more simply & clearly, "didn't know before"
2) When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Best wishes!
Robin
Edited by brando090, 15 May 2013 - 01:39 AM.
Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:11 PM
SNIP
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:07 AM
Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:40 AM
SNIP
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Do try the first sentence again...
regards
david
Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:41 AM
Brandon, if I were you I would click on each link that has been shared in this thread. While David Nishimura's site about Waterman's numbering system is particularly useful for pen collecting (especially for someone like yourself who seems to love Waterman overlays) the links to grammatical assistance are useful for your life in general. You will NOT make it into MIT with grammar as bad as I have seen from you in your posts.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:54 AM
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regardsI was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling
Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."
Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml
If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.
However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:16 AM
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regardsI was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling
Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."
Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml
If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.
However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.
I appreciate the time spent to get those wonderful English resources. They did help, and I'll be sure to re-use them if I forget how to use some of those words in the correct way.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:19 AM
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regardsI was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling
Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."
Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml
If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.
However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:31 AM
The 'ofs', "theirs", "knews", "whats", "theres" etc,, are a bit headache inducing. If you would, please reformat. I really will take stab at answer, once I can follow the questions. For a guy targeting MIT for school... regardsI was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't know it was named a number 222. Now are their Waterman 111's and 333's? What do these pens date to, and there current values (given these auctions were from time ago). http://www.liveaucti...om/item/1281838
I'm going totally off the topic of pens here... The Oatmeal has a good guide to some common errors made with written English. It covers the "there, their, they're" confusion particularly clearly. http://theoatmeal.co...ics/misspelling
Increasingly I'm seeing people use "of" when they mean "have." "Could", "would" and "should" are rarely correctly followed by "of" - people usually mean "Could have", "would have" or "should have."
Here is a good description of using "knew" and "known" http://www.bbc.co.uk...new_known.shtml
If Brando090 is using speech-to-text software instead of a keyboard for text input it's possible the software is entering the wrong homonym for the context, though I thought this software was more sophisticated now, and had become capable of dealing with these words.
However, as a general guide, writing simply and clearly is generally better for everyone's understanding. Using lots of words when a few will do doesn't make the writer look more clever, and it doesn't help anyone understand the piece of writing. Using a lot of words, with many used incorrectly really doesn't help anyone understand what's been written! If in doubt about a meaning or the use of a term, look it up, or simplify what you're saying until you are certain you understand the meaning - that way, the reader is also likely to understand your meaning. There's no shame in clear writing.
I appreciate the time spent to get those wonderful English resources. They did help, and I'll be sure to re-use them if I forget how to use some of those words in the correct way.
Brandon
There is a great deal of information at the Oatmeal link. The information is a good refresher for me and invaluable for a student such as yourself. I suggest making it a daily practice to read this resource until the drills are standard. It will help you in high school, college and it will help you later in life. Your choice as to what you plan to do. Perhaps spending more time at honing your basic educational skills rather than researching pens will make a bigger impact on your life financially.
Edited by brando090, 15 May 2013 - 02:32 AM.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:38 AM
SNIP
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Do try the first sentence again...
regards
david
Got it. Finally!
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
Regards,
Allan
Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:44 AM
SNIP
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never knew previously1 to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Do try the first sentence again...
regards
david
Got it. Finally!
Really? Where is the corrected version? I am still not sure you understand the problems with your first sentence.
Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:28 AM
Let's try to keep this short and sweet, as I'm trying to learn about the pen I recently found online.
I definitely will continue to look over that site, and it would help me financially if I was not in this hobby, but than who would buy those pens found in remote corners of the globe...?
SNIP
Really? Where is the corrected version? I am still not sure you understand the problems with your first sentence.
I was recently looking at some pens, and I discovered something that I otherwise would of never of known of previously to this find. The pen is a Waterman 222 silver eyedropper. The numbering system is odd for this pen, and I've never seen one with such information on it. I've seen pictures, just didn't acknowledge it as a number 222. Now are there Waterman 111's and 333's? When do these pens date from? What are their current values (given these auctions were from some time ago.)
Edited by BrianMcQueen, 15 May 2013 - 03:35 AM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users