| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 181.1 | | ERIS::CALLAS | Jon Callas | Tue May 06 1986 12:09 | 3 |
| Non-flammable.
Jon
|
| 181.2 | Fire-resistant | FURILO::BLINN | Dr. Tom @MRO | Tue May 06 1986 15:56 | 0 |
| 181.3 | One word, not one and a half? | EUCLID::MCKINLEY | | Tue May 06 1986 17:43 | 5 |
| RE: non-flammable, fire-resistant
Got any non-hy-phen-ated solutions?
---Phil
|
| 181.4 | A few | LYMPH::LAMBERT | Sam Lambert | Tue May 06 1986 18:08 | 12 |
|
incombustable
unburnable
uninflammible
asbestic
amiantine
These are just the non-hyphenated entries from Roget's.
(They also list "non-inflammible"...)
-- Sam
|
| 181.5 | wet 8-) | STAR::OBERLIN | | Wed May 07 1986 09:49 | 0 |
| 181.6 | | SUMMIT::NOBLE | | Wed May 07 1986 10:48 | 6 |
| re; 181.5
It could be wet with a flamible liquid-- gasoline, lighter fluid,
etc.
|
| 181.7 | ** FIREPROOF ** | TOPDOC::SLOANE | | Wed May 07 1986 14:36 | 1 |
|
|
| 181.8 | water-cooled reactor ;-) | NY1MM::BONNELL | Jersey Girl | Wed May 07 1986 17:05 | 0 |
| 181.9 | In JOYOFLEX, yet! | FURILO::BLINN | Dr. Tom @MRO | Wed May 07 1986 19:01 | 6 |
| .6> It could be wet with a flamible liquid-- gasoline, lighter fluid,
.6> etc.
Yes, and it could be wet with a flammable liquid, too.
Tom :^)
|
| 181.10 | | ERIS::CALLAS | Jon Callas | Thu May 08 1986 11:43 | 7 |
| re .9
I should think that in this conference we'd be concerned with the
loftier issues of language and thus could tolerate the occasional typo
without wasting disk space to point it out.
Jon
|
| 181.11 | Let this be a lesson to you... | SUMMIT::NOBLE | | Thu May 08 1986 14:39 | 11 |
| re: .6 & .9
Don't try to wordsmith a note when you are also on the phone.
re: .10
I appreciate your forgiveness, and will pay more attention next
time.
- chuck
|
| 181.12 | Occasional flamer responds | FURILO::BLINN | Dr. Tom @MRO | Fri May 09 1986 20:05 | 7 |
| re .10
I should think that in this conference we'd be concerned with the
loftier issues of language and thus could tolerate the occasional
flame without wasting disk space to point it out.
Tom
|
| 181.13 | Apologies are in order, then | ERIS::CALLAS | Jon Callas | Sun May 11 1986 15:31 | 15 |
| I didn't recognize your message as a flame; I thought it was merely
didactic nit-picking. I find flames amusing. Had you written something
along the lines of:
Soandso, you ignorant slut! Who did you have to sleep with to
get write access to this conference? Why, if a thousand monkeys
were set in front of a thousand terminals, they would have
produced an equivalent missive with fewer mistakes in less
time than it takes to make tea.
then there would have been no mistaking it. I guess there wasn't enough
caffeine flowing through the flame-recognition parts of my brain.
Mea culpa,
Jon
|
| 181.14 | Flames?!? Here? You flammable fools! | PABLO::LEVAN | Susan E. LeVan | Wed Aug 06 1986 14:28 | 2 |
| Obviously this note is _not_ incombustable, unburnable, uninflammible, asbestic,
amiantine, fireproof or non-inflammible.
|
| 181.15 | Can anyone define the rule for this? | NOGOV::GOODENOUGH | Jeff Goodenough, IPG Reading-UK | Fri Aug 22 1986 08:29 | 1 |
| Re: .14 That's incombustIble, and uninflammAble.
|
| 181.16 | rule(s) | REGENT::MERRILL | Win one for the Glypher. | Fri Aug 29 1986 17:44 | 13 |
|
Unuh, that which will not burn is "non-flammable"; that which
burns easily is "inflammable" from the Latin `to flame'. That
which CAN catch fire is "combustible".
If you wanted rigorous usage I suppose there would be four levels
incombustible - you cannot burn this stuff;
non-flammable - will not burn all by itself;
combustible - makes a nice fire;
inflammable - that sucker will explode!
RMM
|
| 181.17 | | TKOV52::DIAMOND | | Thu Feb 15 1990 12:53 | 3 |
| Well, since no one else pointed it out...
In French, the opposite of "inflammible" is indeed "ininflammable".
|