The Order of the Stick: An Erratum

[Nimrod's Son]

Let's face it, there's never going to be an end to people posting typo corrections to years-old strips that were already corrected in the books anyway, so I thought a place to collect them all might be handy. :smallsmile: There used to be another thread like this, once upon a time, but it is now olde and crumbly and should not be touched without special tweezers. It's also woefully out of date, whereas I hope to keep this one as up-to-the-minute as possible. And after all, it appears that there's a new book on the (distant) horizon and I reckon the more proof-readers it has, the better. :smallwink:

So! Here is the place to report any typographical mistakes or art errors found in The Order of the Stick, as well as a (mostly) complete list of the whole lot of them, all marked according to whether or not they were corrected in the print version. Please check this list to see if your suggestion is there first before posting!

Also bear in mind that anything that has already been published in print is - per Rich Burlew's word - extremely unlikely to ever get corrected, even in any hypothetical future print run (but that doesn't mean you can't just point them out anyway for the sheer joy of it, if that's your thing. :smallamused:). For this reason, I've listed the strips from the current book before any of the older ones, because they are the only ones that can be changed from now on anyway.

In the list below all errors written in plain old black were corrected in the books, and now all is fine and dandy. Those listed in grey were overlooked and will now probably remain like that forever. Errors in new bonus material created especially for the books will also be marked in grey. In addition, any red entries are brand new mistakes that are only found in the books, despite the online version being error-free.

The list only includes errors from the comics within the compilation books. I haven't as yet bothered with the prequels or Snips and probably never will (unless I get a lot of submissions, but I certainly don't recall any errors in those books off the top of my head). I also haven't included any errors in the text-only portions of the books (such as intros or commentary) because frankly who cares. There are plenty who would say this thread is already way beyond the pale as it is. :smallamused: And finally, I have not included Belkar saying "Rock on, self buddy!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html) because that has been confirmed by Rich as being a deliberate joke.

Enough waffle. LOOK! LIST!
↓

Currently Unpublished Strips:


V - Blood Runs in the Family
(I'm gonna leave these in black and assume they'll all get corrected until proven otherwise)
Typos:
● #673 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html), panel 4: A debatable one due to Durkon's inconsistent accent, but "wind're" should probably be "winds're"
● #674 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0674.html), panel 9: Missing S in "understand"
● #680 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), panel 1: Haley says "begin" but means "being". Also she probably means "held for ransom" but this could be a colloquialism
● #684 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html), panel 6: Missing H in "together"
● #685 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0685.html), panel 11: Missing H in "enthusiastic"
● #689 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0689.html), panel 1: "rhythm" misspelled as "rythym"
● Same strip, panel 7: Accidental triple-T in "attracted"
● #691 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0691.html), panel 5: "olympics" should have a capital O
● #694 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html), panel 2: Missing first S in "fascist"
● #698 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html), page 2, panel 1: Missing first D in "Sandsedge"
● #715 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0715.html), panel 2: There's an additional C in "Exercise" on the wanted poster. This could perhaps be the fault of Tarquin's printers, but I'd imagine the penalty for screwups on an official EoB wanted poster is considerably harsher than the one for screwups in a real-life webcomic, so I reckon Rich is probably to blame
● #718 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html), panel 10: No space between "Haley," and "challenge"
● #728 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html), panel 3: No full stop at the end of Enor's line "...got yummies anyway."
● #734 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html), panel 2: "Every time" written as one word
● Same strip, panel 4: Mr. Jones' line should be "...lawyers for the upcoming trial"
● #735 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html), panel 3: Judging by Durkon's usual accent, "that world" should probably be "tha world"
● Same strip, panel 8: Not sure if this is a typo, as such, but Gannji agreed to eight thousand, not twelve. And this seems like a really silly time to be lying about it
● #737 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html), panel 10: Missing S in "goddess"
● Same strip, panel 12: Missing second A in "orphanage"
● #738 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html), panel 2: Roy says "who's" instead of "whose"
● #740 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0740.html), panel 10: Again, going by Durkon's usual accent, "witin" here should probably be "within"
● #740 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0740.html), panel 5: Missing second I in "liaison"
● #744 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0744.html), panel 7: Haley says "ta" instead of "to"
● #746 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0746.html), panel 5: Missing second A in "gladiatorial"
● #748 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0748.html), panel 8: Misplaced apostrophe in "isn't"
● #753 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0753.html), panel 6: Tarquin says "buy" instead of "but"
● #755 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html), page 1, panel 4: The singers repeat the word "in" during the last line of their song
● Same strip, page 2, panel 2: Missing first S in "fascist"
● #758 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html), panel 2: Missing second I in "visit"
● #767 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html), panel 5: Additional T in "contradicts"
● #776 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html), page 2, panel 1: Missing second A in "gladiatorial"
● #781 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html), panel 1: The guard's "Here, kitty kitty kitty" needs an exclamation mark or full stop
● #782 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0782.html), panel 2: Missing full stop after Gannji's first line
● #794 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0794.html), panel 2: "dwindling day" has a double space between the words, and "day" should probably be "days"
● #806 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html), panel 4: Again, going by the fact that Durkon doesn't usually harden his THs, "witout" should probably be "without"
● #808 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html), panel 4: "worthwhile" is written as two separate words
● #810 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0810.html), panel 5: Additional A in "balcony"
● #814 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html), panel 8: Missing first S in "fascist"
● #833 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html), panel 2: Redcloak says "waiving" but means "waving"
● #847 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html), panel 1: When Durkon says "e'ven", either the apostophe or the V is unnecessary
● #848 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html), panel 4: Missing space between Belkar's two lines
● Same strip, panel 10: Belkar says "principle" but means "principal"
● #855 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html), panel 3: Missing A in "distracted"
● #856 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html), panel 7: There shouldn't be a comma in Kilkil's line
● #861 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html), panel 2: Missing word "be" in Qarr's first line
● #863 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0863.html), panel 9: Unnecessary R in "tissue"
● #871 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), panel 7: Malack means "Ectothermic organisms", or more correctly, just "Ectotherms".
● #872 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html), panel 1: Durkon probably means "'E's a livin' soul, an' I aim ta keep 'im tha way"
● #873 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0873.html), panel 10: Durkon using the word "you"? That's got to be "ye", surely
● #889 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0889.html), page 2, panel 6: The I and E are swapped in "achieved"
● #920 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0920.html), panel 1: Missing full stop in V's first speech bubble
● Same strip, panel 2: Missing L in "effortless"
● #923 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0923.html), panel 5: "pharmaceutical" is misspelled as "pharmecutical"
● #934 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html), page 2, panel 1: Missing O in "buffoon"
● #935 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html), page 2, panel 4: Missing second I in "Resilient"
● #942 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0942.html), panel 10: Unnecessary N in "would've"

Art Errors:
● #695 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html), panel 1: Missing tail on Haley’s speech bubble
● #703 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0703.html), panel 2: One of the hobgoblins has the crease from the curtain in the panel below going right through his head
● #705 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0705.html), panels 1,5,6: One of the mouse’s ears is transparent
● #719 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html), panel 6: Malack’s nostril is missing
● #730 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html), panel 4: Roy’s sword is missing
● #735 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html), panel 12: Gannji’s crossbow appears out of nowhere
● #738 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html), panel 10: There's something very weird going on with Gannji’s feet
● #741 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0741.html), panel 8: One of Blackwing’s toes has become detached from his foot
● #743 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0743.html), panel 4: Elan’s sash reverses direction despite him not moving
● #747 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0747.html), panels 7,8,11: Elan’s sash keeps changing direction, as above
● #748 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0748.html), panel 5: The unconscious gladiator’s leg is severed. Not entirely impossible, but it seems unlikely to have happened from a blow to the head with a blunt instrument
● #759 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html), panel 2: Lord Tyrinar’s belt overlaps his sleeve
● #764 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html), panels 1,2,3,4,5: Haley’s bow is missing
● #765 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0765.html), panel 10: Haley’s bow is missing
● #766 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html), panel 8: Haley’s bow is missing
● #767 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html), panels 5,7: Elan’s silver elven boots keep getting replaced by his regular brown ones
● #768 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0768.html), panels 1,3,4: Elan’s boots are back to brown again, although at this point he could have changed them off-screen
● #777 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0777.html), panel 6: Gannji's tail-armour is missing
● #787 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0787.html), panel 8: The tail is missing from Roy's speech bubble
● #789 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html), panels 7,8,11: Zz'dtri's mouth is open when he's talking, which never happened before and stops again soon after
● #790 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html), panels 6,7,10: As above, Zz'dtri's mouth is open when he talks
● #792 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0792.html), panel 2: Missing tail from V's speech bubble
● #795 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html), panels 5,6: Zz'dtri's mouth is open while he talks for the last time
● #841 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html), panel 1: Durkon's tongue is transparent
● #849 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0849.html), panel 1: Tail missing from Tarquin's speech bubble
● #859 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0859.html), panel 3: Qarr's speech bubble should have a red outline
● #873 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0873.html), panel 4: The floor sticks out past the comic's border
● #887 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0887.html), panel 2: Belkar is postioned in front of V, making it appear like he is floating in mid-air
● #895 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0895.html), panel 9: Belkar's bite-marks are missing
● #901 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html), page 1, panel 1 & page 2, panel 6: Roy's belt is missing
● #906 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html), page 1, panel 7: Zz'dtri's speech bubble has black text and outline instead of his usual grey
● Same strip, page 2, panel 8: Malack's necklace appears to be underneath the cracks in his skin
● #910 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html), panel 10: The brown allosaurus appears to have two left legs
● #911 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0911.html), panel 9: Haley's bow swaps shoulders
● #917 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html), page 2, panel 7: Roy's wounds are missing
● #923 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0923.html), page 2, panel 4: Mr. Scruffy is missing, and so are Bloodfeast's reins
● #928 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html), panel 10: Roy's wounds are missing
● #930 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0930.html), panel 5: Elan's chest wound is missing
● #933 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0933.html), page 2, panel 4: Tarquin's dagger is missing from by his feet
● #935 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html), panels 6,9: Tarquin's stab wound is missing
● #938 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html), panel 5: Julio's ponytail has a hand attached to it

The Books: (http://www.ookoodook.com/store/comics_order-of-the-stick.shtml)


I - Dungeon Crawlin' Fools
NB: The online strips from this book, being the first published, had an extensive overhaul - including the straightening of the early strips' wonky borders, general touching up of the artwork, and some minor dialogue changes and copyright edits. These are only listed individually here if it's a clear, prominent error and not merely a revision.

Typos:
● Cast page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/ootscast.html), panel 8: Roy's speech bubble is missing its full stop
● Intro strip B, panel 4: Belkar's name is misspelled as "Balkar "
● Intro strip F, panel 9: "Griktak" is spelled as "Griknak". This could arguably be a different goblin, but the dialogue seems to imply it's a typo of the same guy
● #4 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0004.html), panel 2: "competence" is misspelled as "competance"
● #13 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), panel 7: Elan says "the Xykon" as if it's his title and not his name
● #24 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html), panel 4: The off-screen goblin misses the P out of "expenses"
● #32 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html), panel 8: "Shut up, Phil." has a full stop instead of a comma
● #39 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0039.html), panel 4: "received", which is spelled correctly online, is misspelled "recieved" in the book
● #44 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html), panel 6: There's a missing full stop after Nale's introduction of Yikyik
● #52 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html), panel 2: Hilgya's "Hee hee" has no capital letter
● #67 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0067.html), panel 8: "nowhere" is written as two words
● #112 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html), panel 9: "injuries" is misspelled as "injurues"

Art Errors:
● Intro strip E, panel 1: Roy’s speech bubble is pointing at Elan, making it look like Elan is saying two different things
● #1 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html), panel 11: Haley’s left hand is missing
● #15 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0015.html): There's something weird going on with the edges of Roy’s armour in all panels of this strip
● #19 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0019.html), panel 10: The green trim on Elan's cape is severely misplaced
● #39 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0039.html), panel 7: In the print version, the new straight border to the comic cuts right through Roy’s speech bubble, partially obscuring the text (though not to the extent of making it illegible)
● #43 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0043.html), panel 9: Zz’dtri’s headband is yellow instead of the red of all future appearances
● #50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html), page 2, panel 2: Hilgya has no legs
● #51 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html), panel 11: Thog’s thought bubbles have regular text instead of his usual bold
● #57 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), panel 5: Zz’dtri’s eyebrows are black instead of his usual white. Additionally, in the print version Belkar's mouth is no longer filled with black, so his flesh-tone is visible inside the outline
● #59 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0059.html), panel 13: The line of the floor is visible through the green monster on the right
● #63 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0063.html), all panels but particularly 6, 11 & 12: All throughout this strip, every time Belkar or Yikyik stabs the other, the wound is gone by the next panel.
● #76 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0076.html), panels 2 & 11: In the print version, Durkon’s mouth is not filled in black (as with Belkar in #57)
● #84 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html), panel 7: The top of Durkon’s leg overlaps his body
● Bonus strip #85c, panels 2,8,11: The fangs of Redcloak and Jeff are transparent, meaning they appear green if they're in front of skin or not at all in an open mouth
● #90 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0090.html), panel 5: Roy’s mouth wasn't filled in with black
● #107 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html), panel 1: In the print version, V’s mouth has not been filled with black as it was online
● #113 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0113.html), panel 1: As above, in the book V’s mouth has not been filled with black
● #115 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html), panels 2,6,7,8,9,10: The same problem as above - in the book, Durkon and V's mouths are not filled in with black as they were online


II - No Cure for the Paladin Blues
Typos:
● #142 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html), panel 9: The first H is missing from "psychopath"
● #143 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0143.html), panel 3: Haley's speech bubble is missing its full stop
● #143 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0143.html), panel 1: The E and T are swapped in "phylactery"
● #171 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots.html), strip title: "dilemma" is misspelled "dillema" in the book only
● #173 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html), panel 7: Repeated word "not" on the sign... though this is possible to explain away in-universe as being the signwriter's fault
● #247 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0247.html), panels 4 & 5: Haley's cryptogram "mnbvrcnp" should really be "mnpvrcnp" and I feel a bit ridiculous for pointing it out
● #258 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html), panel 4: Julia says "kinda" as two separate words
● #259 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0259.html), panel 8: The hobgoblin says "peak" when he means "peek"
● #275 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html), panel 1: Repeated word "the" in "It did not understand the pattern..."
● #275 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html), page 2, panel 2: The A and C are swapped in "exactly"
● #277 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html), page 1, panel 4: Shojo's second voiceover bubble says "laid eyes one each other"
● Same strip, page 3, panel 1: Missing O in "geographically"

Art Errors:
● #122 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html), panel 1: The apple-seller's top has no visible neckline, but in panel 12 it's a V-neck
● #142 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html), panel 12: Thog has a regular speech bubble instead of his usual bold
● #146 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0146.html), panel 1: Elan's mouth is closed even though he's making an enthusiastic declaration
● #200 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), page 4, panel 2: Roy's mouth hasn't been filled in with black
● #215 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html), panel 1: Miko's mouth hasn't been filled in with black
● #257 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html), panel 4: The blue-haired girl's cleavage is the same colour as her clothes
● #269 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0269.html), panel 9: Durkon has no arms
● #271 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0271.html), panel 9: Celia has a regular speech bubble instead of her usual white-on-blue
● #284 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0284.html), page 2, panel 4: Belkar's eyebrow bisects his eyes


III - War and XPs
Typos:
● #331 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html), panel 11: The name of the plant is ginkgo biloba, not "bilboa"
● #387 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html), page 1, panel 9: While the name of the song is "Wannabe", the lyric is actually "wanna be", ie., two words. Ludicrously nitpicky I know
● Same strip, page 3, panel 10: "Nale" is not capitalised in Elan's speech bubble.
● #389 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html), page 1, panel 3: Elan says "my" instead of "may"
● Same strip, page 2, panel 4: "renown" should be "renowned"
● #390 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html), panel 7: "Swordsmen" was missing the second S
● #402 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0402.html), panel 2: Vaarsuvius says "admidst" instead of "amidst"
● #404 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0404.html), panels 4 & 9: O-Chul's name is spelled with a lower-case C
● #405 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots040r.html), panels 1 & 5: As in the previous strip, O-Chul's name is spelled with a lower-case C
● #413 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html), panel 7: The E and A in "Michael" were swapped
● #418 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0418.html), panel 1: The second speech bubble contains one too many uses of the word "this"
● #435 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html), panel 2: Missing R in "strongly"
● #435 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html), panel 10: Thor's run-on sentence "Just relax get some catnip" needs more punctuation
● #473 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0473.html), page 2, panel 2: "disembowelment" has the E and L swapped
● Same strip, page 2, panel 6: missing "to" in "ready to repel"
● #483 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0483.html), panel 4: Missing word "a" in "This is more of a general ache"
● #484 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0484.html), panel 3: Therkla says "...my two of my ninjas..."

Art Errors:
● #317 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0317.html), panel 1: Rather than the expected blue, the furthest-right turret of the Azure City wall appears to be the same colour as Belkar's bedsheet in the next panel
● #345 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html), panel 9: Leeky’s mouth isn't filled in with black
● #350 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0350.html), panel 7: The line of the ground is visible through the SWAT team member’s boot
● #358 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0358.html), panel 8: Leeky’s mouth isn't filled in with black
● Same strip, panel 11: Belkar’s cheek is transparent
● #361 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html), page 2, panel 5: The bearded policeman’s mouth isn't filled with black
● Bonus strip #389a, panel 2: There's a random CCPD sword lying across Julio's foot, despite the fact that the CCPD don't arrive until later in the strip
● #409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html), panel 3: Miko’s stomach wound is missing
● #453 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html), panels 2 & 3: The huecuva’s battle damage is missing


IV - Don't Split the Party
Typos:
● #485 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html), panel 4: Eugene says "lead" but means "led"
● #485 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html), panel 2: The archon's "tomorrow" has too many Ms
● #502 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0502.html), panel 3: Elan's speech bubble contains one too many uses of the word "get"
● #507 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html), panel 3: Missing T in "efforts"
● #530 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html), page 2, panel 6: "euphemisms" was misspelled "euphamisms"
● #543 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html), page 2, panel 1: Too many Ls in "Rolex"
● #549 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0549.html), panel 8: Missing E in "feed"
● #555 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), panel 10: Lower-case I in "I'm"
● #561 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html), panel 10: The V and I were swapped in "rivals"
● #569 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0569.html), panel 11: Celia means "reining", not "reigning"
● #571 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0571.html), panel 7: The Oracle unnecessarily repeated the word "him"
● #572 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html), panel 2: One S too many in "repository"
● #574 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0574.html), panel 6: This one's debatable since it's on a flyer and so could be blamed on Grubwiggler rather than the author - but "discrete" should really be "discreet"
● #577 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0577.html), panel 2: Missing I in "sustainable"
● #584 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), page 2, panel 2: Lien ended her query with a full stop instead of a question mark
● #589 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0589.html), panel 1: One too many Ms in "hemorrhoids"
● #597 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html), panel 2: Unnecessary comma in V's question 'Who is "Therkla"?'
● #600 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0600.html), panel 6: Missing A in "jambalaya"
● #601 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0601.html), panel 6: "bright side" was written as one word
● #602 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html), page 2, panel 5: The cleric says "distinquishing " instead of "distinguishing"
● #604 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0604.html), panel 5: Missing N in "shouldn't"
● #606 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html), panel 7: Missing full stop after "Civilization"
● Same strip, panel 12: Shojo missed the word "a" out of "...a pretty useful trick"
● #612 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html), panel 2: Pete missed the first "to" out of "...to get to my den"
● #617 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0617.html), panel 8: There's an unnecessary "of" in "May the Gods forgive me!"
● #621 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0621.html), panel 2: Missing R in "You and your"
● #623 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html), panel 12: Additional N in "engage"
● #633 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html), panel 4: Haerta's name is missing the T
● Same strip, panel 5: Missing C in "arcane"
● #639 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html), panel 3: "Telekinesis" was mispelled as "Telekinisis"
● #643 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html), page 2, panel 9: Unwanted S in "Greysky"
● #654 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0654.html), panel 1: Missing N in "Sunburst"
● Same strip, panel 9: The Monster says "than" but means "then"
● #657 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html), panel 13: Missing first A in "phalanges"
● #666 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html), panel 7: Missing comma between "be" and "difficult"
● #668 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), panel 6: Missing second N in "millennia"
● #669 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html), panel 5: Roy's second speech bubble is missing the full stop

Art Errors:
● #485 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html), page 2, panel 8: The cloud patterns look as though Rich moved the border between panels 8 and 9 but forgot to redraw the bit of cloud in the bottom right corner
● #530 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html), page 2, panel 7: Celia’s middle finger is missing
● #542 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html), panel 11: In the print version, O-Chul’s mouth is not filled with black as it is online
● #554 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0554.html), panel 4: Lien’s chest is the same colour as her armour
● #557 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0557.html), panels 1,4,5,7,8,9: As above, Lien’s chest is the same colour as her armour
● #569 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0569.html), panel 1: Roy’s shoulder-pad is transparent
● #571 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0571.html), panels 8,9: Despite correcting the original mistake in the next three panels, these two have the same transparent-shoulder-pad thing going on in the book but not the online version
● Same strip, panels 10,11,12: As above, Roy’s shoulder-pad was transparent
● #572 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html), panels 1,2,6,7: More of Roy’s transparent shoulder-pad. It's corrected in panel 1 though
● #579 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html), panels 1,4: The tails were missing from Belkar’s speech bubbles
● #591 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html), panel 5: Durkon’s mouth wasn't filled in with black
● #611 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html), page 2, panel 9: Belkar still has a dagger by his side despite having just thrown them both into an enemy

[Nimrod's Son]

Reserved for possible future use

[Toper]

My stars. I used to think that Rich was a skilled and talented artist and author, but boy have my eyes been opened now!

...OK, kidding. Still, this is kind of incredible; if I ever need one of those find-the-differences puzzles solved, I know who to ask. How much of this did you collect yourself?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Not sure if it counts, but in the published NCFTPB, the page where Haley's cryptograms first appear is missing a translation for one bubble (The one where she complains about the dragon eating her and then vomiting her out).

[Grey Watcher]

Not sure if it counts, but in the published NCFTPB, the page where Haley's cryptograms first appear is missing a translation for one bubble (The one where she complains about the dragon eating her and then vomiting her out).

I think that falls under the "not going to bother with the supplemental text pages" thing.

[Gnome Alone]

Methinks "fascist" is so consistently spelled as "facist " that it seems like a deliberate choice. Like, an alternate etymology maybe?

[Nimrod's Son]

How much of this did you collect yourself?
I copied everything from the old thread a couple of years ago with a view to doing this as soon as the current book was finished. Then every time I read a new strip (or reread an old one) and noticed a mistake, I added it to the list in shorthand form. And it happens a lot - mistakes jump out at me all the time. I can't remember the last time I read a published novel without finding a typo or two. It's more of a curse than a blessing, believe me. :smallwink:

All told, probably about 50-60% of the list is my own work, but done in tiny increments over a few years so it hardly seemed like work at all. Formatting everything for the board's BBcode was by far the most time-consuming part of the whole endeavour, although checking through the books for corrections (which the old thread didn't do) took a fair while as well.


Methinks "fascist" is so consistently spelled as "facist " that it seems like a deliberate choice. Like, an alternate etymology maybe?
I think a more likely explanation by far is that Rich just doesn't know how to spell the word. :smalltongue:

[Imgran]

Very plausible. You never know what words become a bugbear for otherwise intelligent and extremely literate people. And that's even without words like Judgment and Armor that have 2 potentially correct spellings.

My personal public enemy #1 is the word "privilege."

[Domino Quartz]

● #530 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html), panel 7: Celia’s middle finger is missing

This doesn't seem to be the case. It looks to me like she has all her fingers in that panel of that strip. Oops, looks like I was wrong. However, I do think that you should specify the page on that one.

[Nimrod's Son]

My personal public enemy #1 is the word "privilege."
Hey, me too! I know full well it doesn't have a D in it, but by god my hands put one there pretty much every time.


However, I do think that you should specify the page on that one.
Yeah, that's what comes from making shorthand notes in the first place instead of writing it out properly. :smallsmile: Fixed now.

If anyone spots any more errors like that, or any broken/incorrect links or whatever, then please do point them out. I'm sure a few must have have slipped through somewhere.

[dtilque]

● #680 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), panel 1: [...] Also she perhaps means "held to ransom" but this could be a colloquialism

It sounds fine to me, so it's probably just a difference in dialect.



● #859 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0859.html), panel 7: When Nale calls Tarquin "Thog", the comma should be outside the quotation marks

That's a British/American difference. The American standard is to always put commas and periods inside quote marks, even if they don't logically belong there. Since Burlew is American, him following the rule is not an error. (Personally, I think the American rule is foolish and don't follow it. I'm American but also a programmer. In programming or even just writing about programming, logic dictates where punctuation goes and the American standard be damned.)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Impressive work here! I would say not to put anything down for Durkon's accent (except the "e'ven one), as it seems to vary anyways. For example, the spell used to understand it in OOPC is called "Comprehend Inconsistent Accents".

[Nimrod's Son]

It sounds fine to me, so it's probably just a difference in dialect.
Yeah, I think once the book is published, if it still says "held ransom" then I'm not going to bother marking it as an error. Until then I'll leave it in a possibility.


That's a British/American difference. The American standard is to always put commas and periods inside quote marks, even if they don't logically belong there. Since Burlew is American, him following the rule is not an error. (Personally, I think the American rule is foolish and don't follow it. I'm American but also a programmer. In programming or even just writing about programming, logic dictates where punctuation goes and the American standard be damned.)
Huh. Well, that's a new one on me. It's backed up by this site (http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_%28speech%29_marks_punctuation_in_or_out .htm), though, so I'll remove that entry.


I would say not to put anything down for Durkon's accent (except the "e'ven one), as it seems to vary anyways
As above, I'm going to leave them there as possibilities until the book comes out. Most of the Durkon ones involve missing Hs after Ts, and Durkon has consistently used a soft "th" in the past. It's also noteworthy if not actually relevant that there are a lot of common words misspelled with missing Hs around this period, so maybe Rich just had a sticky "H" key on the computer he was using. :smallwink:

[Alcino]

#855 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html), panel 3: "distrcted"

[Dissection]

I don't know if it counts, because it's probably not so much a typo as it is a matter of the Giant confusing different terms, but in panel 7 of comic 871 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), Malack should be using the word "ectothermic", not "exothermic"

[Duck999]

#855 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html), panel 3: "distrcted"

This and so many others-HOW DID I NOT NOTICE IT BEFORE!
I am just the kind of person who sees typos, but I missed so many.

[Grey Watcher]

Yeah, I think once the book is published, if it still says "held ransom" then I'm not going to bother marking it as an error. Until then I'll leave it in a possibility.

...

For what little it's worth, I can't recall ever having heard the phrase "held to ransom" instead of "held ransom" so I guess it truly is one of those colloquial differences rather than any kind of real error.

[Zherog]

Two - independent - suggestions.

1) Consider using tables, perhaps? Don't know about others, but I always find they help when presenting this sort of info. (Of course, if you go with that idea, hold off in the short term because the upcoming software change affects how the tags are done.)

2) Consider spoiler boxes for the various sections, so that - for example - if somebody is looking for stuff from Don't Split the Party they don't have to scroll through everything else.

Nice list.

[Gorm_the_DBA]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html

Page 173, frame 7

Double "Not" in the wording of the sign.

Not sure if that's a grammar error or an art error.

Uncorrected in the book.

[Murk]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0887.html

In 887, second frame, Belkars cloak overlaps that of Vaarsuvius, even though he's lying on the ground.
(Or maybe a mystical floating effect!)

[ChristianSt]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html

Page 173, frame 7

Double "Not" in the wording of the sign.

Not sure if that's a grammar error or an art error.

Uncorrected in the book.

I wouldn't consider that as an error (and it is certainly no art error, and I'm not sure but I don't think it is a grammar error either. In any case I would classify it as a typo). It is really impossible to tell whether this was intended or not. But imo any "in-universe" text (unless stated by the artist as an error) can possible be wrong to show something. [Maybe to highlight that the 'management' isn't that great anyway, or that Haley didn't really read the sign, too]

On top of that it could also be a deliberate (though imo odd choice, since it uses the same word twice) use of a double negative resolving to a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to _a_negative).

For example the urban dictionary features an entry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not%20not) on "not not". Also I did find other web sites using "not not", though that doesn't say that it needs to be a correct usage.


(It was brought up in the discussion thread back then, but I didn't find a statement from The Giant on that topic.)

[Nimrod's Son]

#855 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html), panel 3: "distrcted"
Odd, that one's in my shorthand list; I must have copied over the text somehow. Thanks anyway, though. :smallsmile:


I don't know if it counts, because it's probably not so much a typo as it is a matter of the Giant confusing different terms, but in panel 7 of comic 871 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html), Malack should be using the word "ectothermic", not "exothermic"
Or indeed, just "ectotherm" without the "organism" bit. I'll add it in.


For what little it's worth, I can't recall ever having heard the phrase "held to ransom" instead of "held ransom" so I guess it truly is one of those colloquial differences rather than any kind of real error.
I think a lot of people are confusing "held hostage" with "held ransom" here. "Held ransom" doesn't make grammatical sense. There should be a "to/for" in between, and all the online dictionaries I've checked agree with me. Like I said though, if Rich decides it's an error that he wants Haley to be making because that's just how she talks, then I won't mark it as an error once the book is published.


I wouldn't consider that as an error (and it is certainly no art error, and I'm not sure but I don't think it is a grammar error either. In any case I would classify it as a typo).
It's pretty clearly an error; I'll add it in, with the same caveat as with Grubbwiggler's flyer.


On top of that it could also be a deliberate (though imo odd choice, since it uses the same word twice) use of a double negative resolving to a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to _a_negative).

For example the urban dictionary features an entry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not%20not) on "not not".
Urbandictionary is not an authority on anything; it's mostly a huge list of made-up swearwords in a worldwide game of teenage one-upmanship. :smallwink: But in this case, even using that definition still wouldn't make any sense - "not not responsible" is the same as "not irresponsible", which is the same as "responsible". In which case, the half-orc wouldn't have pointed the sign out to Haley in the first place.


In 887, second frame, Belkars cloak overlaps that of Vaarsuvius, even though he's lying on the ground.
(Or maybe a mystical floating effect!)
Good spot! Added.

[SaintRidley]

Given the fact that Rich is playing with silly pseudomedieval linguistic tropes there (see ye olde for instance), he could also be mashing in the original use of the double negative in English - as an intensified negative. Once upon a time "not not responsible" would have resolved to "super not responsible in any way, shape, or form."

Or it could be that he's pointing out that our Orc parking attendant isn't the brightest knife in the crayon box.

[Nimrod's Son]

Given the fact that Rich is playing with silly pseudomedieval linguistic tropes there (see ye olde for instance), he could also be mashing in the original use of the double negative in English - as an intensified negative. Once upon a time "not not responsible" would have resolved to "super not responsible in any way, shape, or form."
Really? :smallconfused: From what I know of Rich's writing style, I think if he'd wanted to say that, he'd have literally written "super not responsible in any way, shape, or form."


Or it could be that he's pointing out that our Orc parking attendant isn't the brightest knife in the crayon box.
Obvious spelling mistakes or backwards letters are much better devices to show that than having a single repeated word, and Rich is a good enough writer to know that. It's far more likely it's just a typing error; they happen all the time, to the most gifted of writers (which is why most professional writers have an editor; not because they can't spell, but because sometimes their fingers slip or they get distracted and overlook something), and if you cast your eye over the length of the list above you'll see that Rich is certainly not above making quite a lot of them.

Any instances like this that are able to be handwaved away by saying, "Oh, that one's the signwriter's (or whoever's) fault," are already marked as such. I certainly won't be removing any of these from the list just because someone thinks Rich did it on purpose, though. Not unless that someone is Rich himself, at least.

[Grey Watcher]

I think a lot of people are confusing "held hostage" with "held ransom" here. "Held ransom" doesn't make grammatical sense. There should be a "to/for" in between, and all the online dictionaries I've checked agree with me. Like I said though, if Rich decides it's an error that he wants Haley to be making because that's just how she talks, then I won't mark it as an error once the book is published.

You know, now I'm not sure. I've definitely heard "held for ransom" (indeed, i was coming back to say that when I read your response), but now I'm trying to remember when and if I've heard "held ransom". So now I'm totally confused.

[ChristianSt]

It's pretty clearly an error; I'll add it in, with the same caveat as with Grubbwiggler's flyer.



On top of that it could also be a deliberate (though imo odd choice, since it uses the same word twice) use of a double negative resolving to a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to _a_negative).

For example the urban dictionary features an entry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not%20not) on "not not". Also I did find other web sites using "not not", though that doesn't say that it needs to be a correct usage.

Urbandictionary is not an authority on anything; it's mostly a huge list of made-up swearwords in a worldwide game of teenage one-upmanship. :smallwink: But in this case, even using that definition still wouldn't make any sense - "not not responsible" is the same as "not irresponsible", which is the same as "responsible". In which case, the half-orc wouldn't have pointed the sign out to Haley in the first place.


I know that Urbandictionary isn't an authory on anything. I only more or less pointed there to show that "not not" is a usable combination of words (I personally would say it is usable though odd. But I'm not a native speaker, so I at least wanted to find some source that uses it, too). I could have linked to other random sites, but since you basically need to search them for it in a longer text, I haven't found any value in providing such links. (Maybe I should have structured may post a bit better, though...)

And even the 'definition' provided there makes perfectly sense: The management did it, but didn't want to admit.


The most interesting part though is that you just skipped over the best argument that it is possible use of a double negative resolving to a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to _a_negative). [Though you maybe want to argue that Wikipedia isn't a useful source, either. In that case I would like a legitimate source from you, why that sentence is an error in the first place.]


From your post answering SaintRidley's concern on the skipped part, I only can make out the argument "I don't think Rich would use a double negative like that.". And that's sounds for me basically the same as for example "'Hit the head' is an error because I don't think anyone would use it that way". [Sure on the latter you have the author saying that it is used that way. But even without that, it would imo clear that it can be used that way.]


To the "held (for) ransom": I haven't found it odd as "held ransom" (though I'm not a native speaker). From a Google search for "held ransom" I get the feeling that it is in fact possible to use it without the "for".

[Nimrod's Son]

The most interesting part though is that you just skipped over the best argument that it is possible use of a double negative resolving to a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to _a_negative)
I skipped it because this isn't one of those cases. "...management ain't not responsible..." I could accept, but that would still be clumsy wording that I'm sure Rich would rather avoid. As I said above, if Rich wanted to give the impression the half-orc was semi-literate (or spoke in the kind of dialect that would come out with such a turn of phrase), he'd have made it a lot more explicit than the sole repetition of a single word. Starting with his actual speech patterns, and not just the signs in his workplace - nothing about the way the half-orc talks suggests subnormal intelligence, or an odd dialect.

I really think you have to jump through far more hoops to come to the conclusion that this is deliberate than you do to just assume Rich accidentally typed the same word twice without noticing. Again, it's something people do all the time, and something Rich has a proven track record of. Lord, I do it far more often than I'd like. Which is why about 75% of my posts have the "Last edited by..." thing at the bottom of them. :smallyuk::smallwink:


[Though you maybe want to argue that Wikipedia isn't a useful source, either. In that case I would like a legitimate source from you, why that sentence is an error in the first place.]
Wikipedia is just fine. It cites its sources to the high heavens.


To the "held (for) ransom": I haven't found it odd as "held ransom" (though I'm not a native speaker). From a Google search for "held ransom" I get the feeling that it is in fact possible to use it without the "for".
Indeed. But the Google figures speak for themselves: "held to ransom" (the one recommended first by most sources I've seen) has 399,000 results, whereas "held ransom" has just 60,600. "Held for ransom" has over four and a half million, but that's probably because there's a movie by that name. :smallwink:

[Jimorian]

Indeed. But the Google figures speak for themselves: "held to ransom" (the one recommended first by most sources I've seen) has 399,000 results, whereas "held ransom" has just 60,600. "Held for ransom" has over four and a half million, but that's probably because there's a movie by that name. :smallwink:

"Held for ransom" is by far the most common variant in American media, being in countless movies, TV shows, and news reports. I'd understand "Held Ransom" if I heard it, and this thread is the very first time I've ever heard "Held to ransom".

[ChristianSt]

I'm not saying that it can't be an error. But I personally think "Rich wouldn't do so" is not a valid argument, unless Rich said so. Because neither you nor I do actually know what Rich would do or not. Especially what he did or did not 9 years ago.

The question for me boils down to: "Is it possible that this is a deliberate choice for <whatever> reason?" Imo the answer to that questions is: Yes!
You think that <whatever> is bogus. I think it is not (though I admit that there probably are better ways to use a double negative there). But your argumentation that it is impossible for Rich to make worse choices than usually is in my eyes just not really solid (especially in a thread highlighting errors).

And if it is possible that something is an error or not, I personally would err on the side of "it is no error".



I don't think that a "Number of Google hit comparison" is useful at all (I personally would say that this is even more useless than Urbandictionary :smallwink:). Especially since written media sometimes deliberately make less common choices. (Which in this case could just be used to cut down bubble size.)

Again: I don't want to say something is an error if it can also be just valid usage. From that perspective it would be possible to just argue about anything that it might be an error.




And whether you make (and correct) typos or not is pretty much irrelevant to any of this. [I could add that I do that more than I would like, too. But again, that wouldn't add anything useful to this thread.]

[ti'esar]

I'd add that the specific wording "Rich is too good an author to do X" has almost become a cliche for a wrong assumption around here.

[Nimrod's Son]

And whether you make (and correct) typos or not is pretty much irrelevant to any of this.
It's relevant in that I'm the guy who's pedantic enough to compile this thread, and I've spotted far more typos than Rich himself or whoever it is does his proof-reading for him. And I'm pointing out that someone who takes as much care over what they write as I do still often makes mistakes, to try and head off anyone thinking I'm slagging on Rich for the sake of it.


I'd add that the specific wording "Rich is too good an author to do X" has almost become a cliche for a wrong assumption around here.
I never used that specific wording. :smalltongue: Though I'd argue that same idea is often the main reason for people wanting to claim that pretty obvious errors are deliberate inclusions made for esoteric reasons known only to Rich - that is, "Rich is too good an author to have made such a simple mistake. It must mean something." Without pretty compelling evidence for this, I'm always going to reject it.

[ChristianSt]

First of all: I don't want in any way say that what you do is really wrong and please don't see that as an personal attack (because that is not intended).


It's relevant in that I'm the guy who's pedantic enough to compile this thread, and I've spotted far more typos than Rich himself or whoever it is does his proof-reading for him. And I'm pointing out that someone who takes as much care over what they write as I do still often makes mistakes, to try and head off anyone thinking I'm slagging on Rich for the sake of it.

Again, doesn't really matter:

The ability to find errors doesn't really tell anything about the ability how to judge whether something is an error or not :smallwink:. (Also it doesn't eliminate the possibility that an error-finding might be erroneous)
You curating the OP doesn't give you any rights in any form.
I never said that Rich doesn't make errors. I even admitted that it is certainly possible that this is an error. But it doesn't change the fact that it is also possible that this isn't an error.



So could we maybe just compromise in that you leave it there, but use a formulation like "Possible error in the usage of 'not not', though it is possible that it is a valid double negative."? [Unless you tell me a reason why this can't be a valid usage in that way.]

In my opinion that would be the fairest solution, without reaching another kind of consensus.

[Toper]

Arguments over intended ungrammaticality (or accent) vs. unintended typo are pretty unproductive. I think it's best to let the OP decide each case and not try too hard to satisfy everyone.


"Held for ransom" is by far the most common variant in American media, being in countless movies, TV shows, and news reports. I'd understand "Held Ransom" if I heard it, and this thread is the very first time I've ever heard "Held to ransom".
This is exactly my experience. "Held for ransom" is normal, "held ransom" is unusual but OK, and "held to ransom" is wrong in my dialect.

In #483 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0483.html), panel 4, it should be "This is more of a general ache." Not fixed in print.

[Nimrod's Son]

So could we maybe just compromise in that you leave it there, but use a formulation like "Possible error in the usage of 'not not', though it is possible that it is a valid double negative."? [Unless you tell me a reason why this can't be a valid usage in that way.]
I've already tried; but I'll expand:

Some of the examples from the Wiki link you provided are things like "We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges!" or "We don't need no education". None of the examples given use the immediate repetition of the same word, and I can't even think of a hypothetical example that would. In fact, it's very rare that someone would use that double-negative rule with the word "not" full stop - "don't" or "ain't" are the usual ones. An orange-seller might say, "I ain't got no apples", but if someone then pointed to their orange-basket and said asked, "Well, what about those?", the seller wouldn't reply, "Those ain't not apples (ie., those are not not apples)". They'd either simply reply "Those ain't apples", or they'd say, "Those ain't no apples". Which is why, as I said above, I could just about accept it if it said "...management ain't not responsible...", but even that would be a huge stretch, because the sentence still parses as "management is responsible". The more likely phrasing would be either "...management ain't responsible..." or "...management ain't got no responsibility...".

As Wikipedia says, "Because of their non-standard nature, such double negatives are often employed in literature and the performing arts as part of characterization, particularly to establish a speaker's lower-class or uneducated status." There is no such suggestion about the half-orc - and the idea that the guy who wrote the half-orc's sign is a character that has never been introduced on-panel but Rich is subtlely trying to give him characterisation anyway by showing us that he uses double negatives in a non-standard way is frankly not an argument I'm going to entertain. Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html) how Rich shows someone writing in a sub-literate way: he makes it explicit.

So no, I don't consider it possible that it is a valid double negative. The entry already has a note that the error can be handwaved away in-universe, but I'm not prepared to concede that it may be deliberate on the author's part, and the only thing that will change my mind on that is Rich himself directly saying so.


This is exactly my experience. "Held for ransom" is normal, "held ransom" is unusual but OK, and "held to ransom" is wrong in my dialect.
The standard seems to be either "to" or "for" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ransom_1?q=ransom) in British English (hence my use of "to" in the original entry) and just "for" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/ransom_1?q=ransom) in American English. I haven't been able to locate a single source that says "held ransom" is actually correct in either British or American.

In any case, I've amended the entry to say "for" rather than "to", because I think it's a safe bet Rich is going to be using the American standard. :smallwink:


In #483 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0483.html), panel 4, it should be "This is more of a general ache." Not fixed in print.
Also added. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[malloyd]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html

Page 173, frame 7
Double "Not" in the wording of the sign.
Not sure if that's a grammar error or an art error.


I thought it was part of the joke. That is the management definitely is responsible for the (poor) condition of your mount, but in the sense we caused it, not in the sense we are going to pay to fix it.

[SaintRidley]

Really? From what I know of Rich's writing style, I think if he'd wanted to say that, he'd have literally written "super not responsible in any way, shape, or form."

Yeah, that's actually how double negatives used to work in English. And yeah, in other instances Rich might have said "super not responsible in any way, shape, or form" but as I pointed out, he's already gone and done one silly pseudomedievalizing of the text on the sign. No reason not to go for a more obscure sort too, given we know Rich likes to drop somewhat obscure references into the comic.

My point being that assuming it is a typo is itself an assumption, just as much as any suggested resolution of the issue to not being a typo. This isn't like misspelling fascist - that's a typo. This? Looks weird, but needs to be proven a typo first.

I haven't been able to locate a single source that says "held ransom" is actually correct in either British or American.
You don't need to (not least because English is a language which brooks no authority telling it how it ought to operate). All you need to know is how indirect objects work - and often they elide the to or for which renders the object dative in the first place. What's unusual is that it's done to form a phrasal verb, but that's not really a problem.

[ChristianSt]

I finally came to the conclusion that you will not change your opinion. Still I believe in my opinion. I agree to disagree with you on that.

Which brings me to this:


So no, I don't consider it possible that it is a valid double negative. The entry already has a note that the error can be handwaved away in-universe, but I'm not prepared to concede that it may be deliberate on the author's part, and the only thing that will change my mind on that is Rich himself directly saying so.

What do you mean with "not prepared to concede"?
If you mean that you do not change your opinion? Then yes - you have your own opinion. And after what you said I don't think anything I can say will alter that. So I will stop doing so. (Unless maybe I find a "source using 'not not' you might find believable". And since I'm not going to start digging for one the chances for that are minimal.)
If you mean that you will not edit it OP in any way? Then no - that is not within your rights. I already said that being a thread Curator doesn't give you any rights a normal poster doesn't have. And as previously said, this isn't meant to devaluate your opinion or attack you (or saying you doing this thread in a wrong way), but more to prevent you from devaluate my and other posters opinions [which I have the feeling you are trying to do right now].


Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic. Disruptive or chronically off-topic posters can still be reported to the forum moderation as normal, of course.

As this is an open forum, and multiple threads on a single topic (with competing curators and selection processes) are not allowed, choosing and agreeing to thread curators is a somewhat fraught process. We would prefer for there to be universal agreement, or, at least, broad consensus on appropriate curators, and that curators do their duty conscientiously and without bias. If a dispute arises about curation (either who is the curator or how the curator is doing their duty), it should be referred to the Moderators, who will contact the curator and the interested parties. In some cases, curators may, with moderator approval, determine some sort of democratic method for inclusion or exclusion of given material, as long as that method is fair and does not give them any unusual influence over the results.

In all cases, posters and curators must abide by the forum rules. Failure to do so will result in warnings or infractions, as appropriate. Continued dispute on the status of a thread may also result in it being closed for an indefinite period of time.

Right now we have three posters (SaintRidley, malloyd and me) saying "this is not an error" and two posters (you and Gorm_the_DBA) saying "this is an error". From that standpoint your opinion right now is even the minority. So I think my offer to compromise there isn't unreasonable. (And I could even say it is rather generous on my part, since I would prefer to not include it at all.)


EDIT: I think "held ransom" can be correct too, but I'm sorta ok with your entry there (though I'm not sure if 'colloquialism' is the right term for it. But since I personally don't know it, I would leave it there. But since other posters said that it is valid I think 'colloquialism' is a bit too dismissing).

[ti'esar]

Right now we have three posters (SaintRidley, malloyd and me) saying "this is not an error" and two posters (you and Gorm_the_DBA) saying "this is an error".

Make that four posters disagreeing. My point about "Rich wouldn't do that" was meant as an implicit criticism of the claim that yes, it's definitely an error.

[ChristianSt]

Make that four posters disagreeing. My point about "Rich wouldn't do that" was meant as an implicit criticism of the claim that yes, it's definitely an error.

Actually I thought about doing so (and including Toper in the "it is an error"-camp, because of his statement to let the OP do what he thinks is best).

But since I wasn't exactly sure if I have read your statement correctly (and Toper didn't really say what he thinks about it, but only to do whatever the OP wants to do), I thought it would be better to not speculate on that part and only include people which explicitly stated their opinion :smallwink:
[And imo it wouldn't be good if I want to respect the opinion of other posters if I just assume their (imo rather vague) post means what I think it does.]

[b_jonas]

In #555 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), the strip number, mostly hidden behind a speech bubble, seems to say "#553".

[Zherog]

Right now we have three posters (SaintRidley, malloyd and me) saying "this is not an error" and two posters (you and Gorm_the_DBA) saying "this is an error". From that standpoint your opinion right now is even the minority. So I think my offer to compromise there isn't unreasonable. (And I could even say it is rather generous on my part, since I would prefer to not include it at all.)

Well, if we're going to resort to this, I'll go ahead and weigh in and say I think it's an error.

[Duck999]

In #555 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), the strip number, mostly hidden behind a speech bubble, seems to say "#553".

Either that or 552.

[BobTheDog]

Well, if we're going to resort to this, I'll go ahead and weigh in and say I think it's an error.

I think the listing works as it is, though I would change it to "possibly intentional" instead of "possible to explain in-universe."

I mean, it's obviously a grammar error, and one that happens often enough to me that I wouldn't be surprised had escaped Rich and any proofreaders, but it happens in such a perfect spot that I think it's there for the LOLZ.

[Nimrod's Son]

This isn't like misspelling fascist - that's a typo. This? Looks weird, but needs to be proven a typo first.
So the "facist" one is definitely a typo, but this one needs more evidence? Beyond everything that I've already argued? Right-o.


Right now we have three posters (SaintRidley, malloyd and me) saying "this is not an error" and two posters (you and Gorm_the_DBA) saying "this is an error". From that standpoint your opinion right now is even the minority. So I think my offer to compromise there isn't unreasonable. (And I could even say it is rather generous on my part, since I would prefer to not include it at all.)
Please don't patronise me by quoting the rules at me; I'm well aware of them. If you want to report me to the mods, or recruit an army in your defense where everyone claims this is deliberate so you've got a majority consensus about it, then fine, by all means do so. But two or three posters does not a consensus make, especially when most people who agree with me won't even bother posting to say so unless specifically called to do so (although, to be fair, Zherog did - which evens the score from where I'm standing :smallwink:) - people rarely weigh in on issues like this unless they specifically disagree. And unless I see something to that effect, the OP will remain unchanged. By your own admisson, you are not a native English speaker. I am, and have spent every single day I've ever spent on this Earth living around people who use double negatives in the way your link illustrates. You are of course free to disbelieve me when I say this is not one of those examples, but my entire life suggests otherwise to me.

And of course, per those forum rules you quoted, you are free to discuss the issue until the proverbial cows return. There is nothing in those rules, however, that says I must edit the OP just because you don't agree with it.


I think "held ransom" can be correct too, but I'm sorta ok with your entry there (though I'm not sure if 'colloquialism' is the right term for it. But since I personally don't know it, I would leave it there. But since other posters said that it is valid I think 'colloquialism' is a bit too dismissing).
Can we drop the "held ransom" thing now, please? I've already made the necessary amendments to the entry, and also said that if it remains uncorrected in the book then I'll remove it from the list altogether. The main purpose of this thread is to make sure that all the books published from now on are as free of errors as Rich wants them to be - everything else is just trivia. I'm not going to remove a suggestion altogether just because a few people think it was probably deliberate; Rich is free to use or ignore this thread as he sees fit.


Make that four posters disagreeing. My point about "Rich wouldn't do that" was meant as an implicit criticism of the claim that yes, it's definitely an error.
Yep, understood. I did already reply to that point, though.


In #555 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), the strip number, mostly hidden behind a speech bubble, seems to say "#553".
A good spot, but since the entire title bar is removed from the strips in the books, it's not really worth making a note of here.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Re: Double Negative

I do not believe it to be an error. I think it is a standard use to confuse matter by legalese. "The management is responsible" is clear: they pay for damage to the horse. "The management is not responsible" is clear: they do not pay for damage to the horse (but that may drive customers away). "The management is not not responsible" is muddled, and thus has plausible deniability. To the question "will you care for the horses?" They can answer, honestly, "we will not not be responsible" and trust that most people won't think too closely on what that means - which is, essentially, the neutral position where they neither are nor aren't responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xd9CnUK3jA

"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: nobody likes it, and the frog dies".

Grey Wolf

[Nimrod's Son]

I really think if that was the case, then Haley would have at least argued the point.

"Read the sign, Honey."

...and Haley reads the sign, with its incredibly ambiguous wording, and relents with nothing but a "grumble"?

That's not the Haley I know. :smallwink:

[SaintRidley]

So the "facist" one is definitely a typo, but this one needs more evidence? Beyond everything that I've already argued? Right-o.

Considering there's only one way to spell fascist, but there are actual plausible reasons the double not could actually be there on purpose, absolutely. The difference in situations is a vast gulf.

[Nimrod's Son]

Considering there's only one way to spell fascist, but there are actual plausible reasons the double not could actually be there on purpose, absolutely. The difference in situations is a vast gulf.
I agree there is only one way to spell "fascist". I disagree that there are any plausible reasons why that sign would have "not" repeated, and I've already spent more time than I care to discussing why. The strip came out years ago, and isn't getting changed regardless.

And neither is the OP, unless my hand is forced. :smalltongue:

[ChristianSt]

Please don't patronise me by quoting the rules at me; I'm well aware of them. If you want to report me to the mods, or recruit an army in your defense where everyone claims this is deliberate so you've got a majority consensus about it, then fine, by all means do so. But two or three posters does not a consensus make, especially when most people who agree with me won't even bother posting to say so unless specifically called to do so (although, to be fair, Zherog did - which evens the score from where I'm standing :smallwink:) - people rarely weigh in on issues like this unless they specifically disagree. And unless I see something to that effect, the OP will remain unchanged. By your own admisson, you are not a native English speaker. I am, and have spent every single day I've ever spent on this Earth living around people who use double negatives in the way your link illustrates. You are of course free to disbelieve me when I say this is not one of those examples, but my entire life suggests otherwise to me.



I agree there is only one way to spell "fascist". I disagree that there are any plausible reasons why that sign would have "not" repeated, and I've already spent more time than I care to discussing why. The strip came out years ago, and isn't getting changed regardless.

And neither is the OP, unless my hand is forced. :smalltongue:


Sorry if you feel patronized by me quoting those things, but I have not the feeling you are aware of them.

There are 5 (out of 15 different posters) [though to be fair as you made your post it was 'only' 4 out of 14. But this is still more than "two or three"] posters disagreeing with you on this one. There is an equal (but only if you count the one poster not stating his opinion but only chipping in and saying "whatever the OP wants") amount of posters agreeing with you (including yourself).

So what gives you the right to say that your opinion is the thread consensus? Saying that there are countless others agreeing with you but don't bother to post is just not an argument. That is even a worse argument than your whole "I think Rich wouldn't do so". I could equally say there are more than enough people that don't want to get dragged into this conversation. [And I would rightfully add that they are wise to do so :smallsigh:]

Also from what you say it seems (at least I can't read it in any other way) that you think your opinion is inherently worthier than mine. [Probably because I made the "error" of saying I'm not a native speaker :smallsigh:. But that doesn't make my opinion wrong or irrelevant or something like that.]
It is true that I haven't presented any proof that this sentence and his meaning is valid. But at the same time you have failed to present any proof that this sentence and his meaning is invalid. And your ongoing argumentation "but if Rich wanted..." doesn't change anything on that part, because it is only speculation on your part.


Your sentence "And neither is the OP, unless my hand is forced." further highlights to me that you wouldn't change anything even if there would suddenly appear 20 other people saying "not an error".


And if you are true to your statement "The main purpose of this thread is to make sure that all the books published from now on are as free of errors as Rich wants them to be - everything else is just trivia." then what would be so bad about changing "error" in "maybe error - maybe not an error"? :smallconfused:
From the position "highlighting things to Rich" it makes no real difference if the OP says "X is an error" "X can be an error" or "X is most likely not an error, but maybe it was meant to be something else". In all those cases Rich would see that there is X, which might or might not be something he wants to fix. [And it is kinda funny that you say that to something of which I actually said that I'm basically ok with your entry...]

But from what I read from you, it seems you don't even think such a compromise is a reasonable option.

The compromise at least would respect the so far reached consensus (i.e. there isn't any, but a bunch of people saying "error" and another bunch saying "not an error"). [And it (at least from my side) would pretty much end this discussion, although that is partly because I don't want to argue further and think a compromise is fair. But imo it isn't an error.]

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I really think if that was the case, then Haley would have at least argued the point.

Why? Haley's more likely to kill the person (test of the mind) or steal from them (rogue) than argue. Also, from a Rule of Funny perspective, it would have accomplished nothing as a joke that wasn't accomplished by V also arguing legalese, and V is more inherently funny than Haley in the same circumstance due to loquaciousness.

Also, I take offence at you offhandedly deciding that my scenario is implausible only on your say so. You may think it unlikely, but it is most definitely plausible, as is obvious from my citing of pre-existing usage in mass media.

Grey Wolf

[Murk]

I've never been involved in community projects before, so I don't know the exact details about thread curators and majority consensus, but I think there is one essential part about it that seems to be overlooked:
the thread has to be a community project, with a thread curator.

As long as the OP is simply stating his feelings about something (in this case: errors), nothing, no one, no majority, has the right to make him change the OP (as long as said feelings don't break any forum rules, of course). And yes, even someone stating his feelings can ask for input and feedback without having to change it if people disagree.

I really, really hope it doesn't have to come with this, but if the OP would put a small disclaimer [OPINION] in the first post, you can disagree all you want and nothing will get changed.
Better to try and persuade him than threaten him with "majority"! And if persuasion doesn't help, well, nothing to be done about it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I've never been involved in community projects before, so I don't know the exact details about thread curators and majority consensus, but I think there is one essential part about it that seems to be overlooked:
the thread has to be a community project, with a thread curator.

As long as the OP is simply stating his feelings about something (in this case: errors), nothing, no one, no majority, has the right to make him change the OP (as long as said feelings don't break any forum rules, of course). And yes, even someone stating his feelings can ask for input and feedback without having to change it if people disagree.

I really, really hope it doesn't have to come with this, but if the OP would put a small disclaimer [OPINION] in the first post, you can disagree all you want and nothing will get changed.
Better to try and persuade him than threaten him with "majority"! And if persuasion doesn't help, well, nothing to be done about it.

No, that is not how it works. Because if we do disagree, we cannot take our business elsewhere and start a parallel thread with what we think is the correct list of errata.

These are the rules of curated threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2). Specifically, the curator cannot make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic.

Grey Wolf

[Murk]

No, that is not how it works. Because if we do disagree, we cannot take our business elsewhere and start a parallel thread with what we think is the correct list of errata.

These are the rules of curated threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2). Specifically, the curator cannot make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic.

Grey Wolf

Oo, thanks.
That is curious business indeed, but, yeah, I was straight-up wrong.

Still, I'd hope we didn't have to resort to "I've got more buddies who agree".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oo, thanks.
That is curious business indeed, but, yeah, I was straight-up wrong.

The reasons for those rules involve a fairly bad flame war, so the less said about it, the better.


Still, I'd hope we didn't have to resort to "I've got more buddies who agree".

It's a new thread, and the curator hasn't picked a method of determining consensus yet. When he does, there will be less of that. Absent those, we default to majority opinion as determined by posting. I don't like that method very much, which is why the thread I curate runs on different rules.

Grey Wolf

[Kalmegil]

This is a thread where erring on the side of inclusion seems like a no-brainer, since the goal is to provide the Giant a chance to see and possibly correct errors.

And our characterization of them seems almost meaningless in that context. If enough information is present to identify the error, does it really matter if all the possible explanations about why they might be errors are listed. The "not not" entry already includes an indication that it might be explainable.

******

For the record, it seems like a clear error to me. There's no other indication of the horse attendants illiteracy, and the emphasis or double-negative arguments strike me as extremely unlikely. But, again, does it matter if those possible explanations are included?

To me the best rule for inclusion is, "Does a significant minority, or more think it's an error? If so, provide enough info to identify the error, and mention whether there's contention without listing all the different theories about why it's not an error."

If it becomes necessary to make a more elaborate rule (for example, if people start ignoring direct links showing that a particular phrase means what the bubble is intended to say, such as the "hit the head" issue before Rich clarified), we can revisit the rules then.

[Murk]

It's a new thread, and the curator hasn't picked a method of determining consensus yet. When he does, there will be less of that. Absent those, we default to majority opinion as determined by posting. I don't like that method very much, which is why the thread I curate runs on different rules.

Grey Wolf

To be honest, a vote on the identity of the MitD would be quite entertaining. Especially if everyone would afterwards be "OK, now we know for certain it's Snarl jr., because the majority said so."

This is not the silly suggestions thread, though, so I'll shut my mouth and go hunt some errors.

EDIT: I momentarily pause my hunt to agree with everything Kalmegil said.

[Toper]

This is a thread where erring on the side of inclusion seems like a no-brainer, since the goal is to provide the Giant a chance to see and possibly correct errors.
This makes sense to me. Anyway the sign is almost certainly an error, since the single-not version is mildly funny and entirely in keeping with the tone of the strip at the time. Like the OP I am boggled that anyone seriously disagrees, but that's the curse of people who are right all the time. :smallwink:

Unlike that argument, this post is not useless* because:
#556 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0556.html), panel 8: missing A in "guaranteed"
#559 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0559.html), panel 8: extra V in "privy"

I don't have the book to check it.

[SaintRidley]

I don't disagree that the double not is likely an error. Only that it is indisputably so.

[Zherog]

I don't disagree that the double not is likely an error. Only that it is indisputably so.

Such a note already exists in the entry.


#173 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html), panel 7: Repeated word "not" on the sign... though this is possible to explain away in-universe as being the signwriter's fault

We can quibble over the wording, I guess.

Would adding "or intention" to the end of the grey text end the argument?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Would adding "or intention" to the end of the grey text end the argument?

What, on the Internet? No, I believe only a Godwin can end an argument.

Kidding aside, I would be happier with it if it said "or intention" in regular font size.

Grey Wolf

[Vaylon]

I'm surprised to see this thread.

[Zherog]

What, on the Internet? No, I believe only a Godwin can end an argument.

I know, right? :smalleek:


Kidding aside, I would be happier with it if it said "or intention" in regular font size.

Grey Wolf

I'm OK with this. How do others feel, especially Nim and ChristianSt?

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm surprised to see this thread.
Why? During a fixed-term drought where the forum is not wrapped up in discussion of the most recent comic, any and every thread that might amuse someone is possible. This one was made less than a week ago, well after 946 was posted.

[ChristianSt]

I'm OK with this. How do others feel, especially Nim and ChristianSt?

I'm already stated twice that I would be fine with a compromise, since from what I see there isn't any consensus right now. I have already made that suggestion myself:


So could we maybe just compromise in that you leave it there, but use a formulation like "Possible error in the usage of 'not not', though it is possible that it is a valid double negative."?

Heck, I would certainly be fine if my opinion is being turned down if it is the minority or something like that.

But I'm not fine with mine and other posters opinion just getting ignored by the OP, even if it is as numerous as the opposite side of the discussion.

[Zherog]

Spiffy.

Nim, you OK with adding "or intention" and switching back to normal size? (Really, we're spending the better part of three pages now discussing something that will likely never get fixed if it is a mistake. Let's just bury this and move on.)

[Kalmegil]

But I'm not fine with mine and other posters opinion just getting ignored by the OP, even if it is as numerous as the opposite side of the discussion.

Your opinion wasn't ignored. It was addressed at length, and accomodated in the post, even if not in the way you preferred.

[ChristianSt]

Your opinion wasn't ignored. It was addressed at length, and accomodated in the post, even if not in the way you preferred.

Ok, then it was not ignored, but just dismissed - which isn't better.

And if the OP lists "X is yellow", me (and other posters!) say "X is red", but I say "ok, let's compromise, lets say 'X is yellow or red (or maybe orange)'" then certainly a change to "X is yellow but maybe it is blue instead" doesn't in any way accommodate the opinion of me and the other posters here.

[Kalmegil]

And if the OP lists "X is yellow", me (and other posters!) say "X is red", but I say "ok, let's compromise, lets say 'X is yellow or red (or maybe orange)'" then certainly a change to "X is yellow but maybe it is blue instead" doesn't in any way accommodate the opinion of me and the other posters here.

Your analogy isn't valid. To be so, it would need to at least reflect some sort of hierarchical categorization, whereby red and orange are acknowledge to have important attributes (including the most important attribute for purposes of this thread) in common.

Your general opinion--that it's not an error, or possibly not an error--was absolutely accommodated. Your objection was that it didn't include your reasons for it not being an error.

Disagreement with part of your opinion is not dismissal.

[ChristianSt]

Your general opinion--that it's not an error, or possibly not an error--was absolutely accommodated. Your objection was that it didn't include your reasons for it not being an error.


Just no.

It still says it is an error without listing any other possibility. It says that is is an error or an error made deliberate. But it doesn't list the option that it just is not an error.


Disagreement with part of your opinion is not dismissal.

But it is not just disagreement. As previously said a thread curator "cannot make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post". But with an equal (and at the time of his posting even larger) amount of people disagreeing on that topic just deciding "no I don't change it" is just that.

[Kalmegil]

Just no.

It still says it is an error without listing any other possibility. It says that is is an error or an error made deliberate. But it doesn't list the option that it just is not an error.

Just yes. For purposes of this thread, the only definition of error that matters is whether or not the Giant put something other than what he intended in the comic. If the comic say "Who are you giving that to?" it's not an error unless the Giant meant to type "Whom" instead of "Who." Similarly, if the Giant meant to include "not" only once, then it's an error, regardless of whether "not not" is correct in using some obscure grammatical construction.

This is not a grammar thread; statements that it might have been intentional fully suffice for the purpose of the thread.


But it is not just disagreement. As previously said a thread curator "cannot make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post". But with an equal (and at the time of his posting even larger) amount of people disagreeing on that topic just deciding "no I don't change it" is just that.

But the entry is included; so is a statement that it might not be an error. You've been using the curator rule as a club; I don't think it stretches nearly as far as you contend.

And it's a serious stretch to say you've been dismissed when the entry was changed in response to what you and others said, including inclusion of the critical area of disagreement that it might have been intentional.

That you want more than that doesn't mean you were dismissed. Had you been dismissed, that extra clause wouldn't even be there.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Just yes. For purposes of this thread, the only definition of error that matters is whether or not the Giant put something other than what he intended in the comic.

This is completely unusable as a definition, unless you are capable of reading Rich's mind. Since that is unlikely to be the case, a far more reasonable and workable definition is "things that are in error, whether Giant intended them to be in error or not". Under that definition, the 'not not' construction may not qualify, since there are perfectly valid, if ungrammatical, uses for it.


If the comic say "Who are you giving that to?" it's not an error unless the Giant meant to type "Whom" instead of "Who."

And who gets to decide if the Giant meant it? You?


Similarly, if the Giant meant to include "not" only once, then it's an error, regardless of whether "not not" is correct in using some obscure grammatical construction.

Obscure? A Simpsons reference is obscure now? No, I reject you attempt to minimise my explanation. I also reject your attempt to mischaracterise my position.


But the entry is included; so is a statement that it might not be an error.

No, it doesn't. It states that it might be an error on the Giant's part, or in the orc's part. The possibility that it might not be an error is not included, and I am not fine with that.


You've been using the curator rule as a club; I don't think it stretches nearly as far as you contend.
And as a curator myself, I do think a curator cannot simply refuse to listen to people asking for a change to the OP, not unless they are clearly in the minority, which at this point cannot be quantified.

Grey Wolf

[SaintRidley]

Such a note already exists in the entry.



We can quibble over the wording, I guess.

Would adding "or intention" to the end of the grey text end the argument?

I mean that it may simply be not an error at all, on Rich or the Orc's part. The note still implicitly classes "not not" as indisputably an error either on Rich's part or intended by Rich to be on the Orc's part. It does not acknowledge that reading this as an error at all is an act of interpretation on equal footing with reading it as not an error.

Also, everything Grey_Wolf_c said.

[Zherog]

I mean that it may simply be not an error at all, on Rich or the Orc's part. The note still implicitly classes "not not" as indisputably an error either on Rich's part or intended by Rich to be on the Orc's part. It does not acknowledge that reading this as an error at all is an act of interpretation on equal footing with reading it as not an error.

Also, everything Grey_Wolf_c said.

OK, that's fair.

So how 'bout we give Nim a chance to respond to the proposal I mande - of adding "or intentional" to the note and fixing the size. If Nim is open to that change, this entire page (and then some) is a waste of cyber-space.

[rodneyAnonymous]

#886 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html): repartee is misspelled reparté.

[Kalmegil]

This is completely unusable as a definition, unless you are capable of reading Rich's mind. Since that is unlikely to be the case, a far more reasonable and workable definition is "things that are in error, whether Giant intended them to be in error or not". Under that definition, the 'not not' construction may not qualify, since there are perfectly valid, if ungrammatical, uses for it.

You so entirely missed the point of what I was saying that I hardly no where to begin here.

My point is that if we post it as an error, and mention it might not be an error, it doesn't matter if all the reasons for each conclusion are listed, because the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.


And who gets to decide if the Giant meant it? You?

See above. I was definitively NOT talking about anyone being a final arbiter about what is or isn't an error. Rather that the reasons don't really matter if both conclusions are listed.


Obscure? A Simpsons reference is obscure now? No, I reject you attempt to minimise my explanation. I also reject your attempt to mischaracterise my position.

You're rejecting something that hasn't happened. I haven't addressed you until now in this thread, have I?

(Also, something being the Simpsons doesn't make it not obscure. The Simpsons writers revel in using obscure things. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether I've "mischaracterized" you. I wasn't attempting to summarize your position at all.)

As for you "rejecting" my attempt to minimize your explanation, I reject your explanation. Should either of us care either way? I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong.

But the point is that both aspects of the relevant information (was this an author's error or not) are included in the entry right now.


No, it doesn't. It states that it might be an error on the Giant's part, or in the orc's part. The possibility that it might not be an error is not included, and I am not fine with that.

It doesn't matter for purposes of this thread. This thread is not about identifying error on the part of the characters. It's about identifying whether something is an author's error, and bringing it to his attention.


And as a curator myself, I do think a curator cannot simply refuse to listen to people asking for a change to the OP, not unless they are clearly in the minority, which at this point cannot be quantified.

Her hasn't. He's listened repeatedly.


OK, that's fair.

So how 'bout we give Nim a chance to respond to the proposal I mande - of adding "or intentional" to the note and fixing the size. If Nim is open to that change, this entire page (and then some) is a waste of cyber-space.

Are we running out of cyber-space?

[Toper]

The possibility that it might not be an error is not included, and I am not fine with that.
Seriously?


If Nim is open to that change, this entire page (and then some) is a waste of cyber-space.
Seriously.

You guys are quibbling and apparently taking serious umbrage over really stupid minutiae. None of this matters to the thread's purpose of pointing out errors. If an arguable error is mistakenly listed or given a note in the wrong font size (!), it is fine. Grey_Wolf and ChristianSt, if this thread ever gets a community, I for one think it would be better off without "contributions" like what you've posted so far. If I were the curator I'd be leaving in disgust about now.

[ti'esar]

Seriously?


Seriously.

You guys are quibbling and apparently taking serious umbrage over really stupid minutiae. None of this matters to the thread's purpose of pointing out errors. If an arguable error is mistakenly listed or given a note in the wrong font size (!), it is fine. Grey_Wolf and ChristianSt, if this thread ever gets a community, I for one think it would be better off without "contributions" like what you've posted so far. If I were the curator I'd be leaving in disgust about now.

If the curator of a community thread not only flatly rejects input from the community, but rejects the possibility of ever acknowledging it... what's the point? Why have it be a community thread at all instead of "Nimrod's Son's private list of errors"?

[Felhammer]

● #15 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0015.html): There's something weird going on with the edges of Roy’s armour in all panels of this strip

That's not really an error. That is caused by not having Anti-Alias clicked with a high enough tolerance. Basically the paint bucket didn't fill in the lighter black pixels that lined the outline of Roy's armor.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's not really an error. That is caused by not having Anti-Alias clicked with a high enough tolerance. Basically the paint bucket didn't fill in the lighter black pixels that lined the outline of Roy's armor.

Isn't that still an art error? Or are you saying that that was a deliberate choice?

[Kalmegil]

If the curator of a community thread not only flatly rejects input from the community, but rejects the possibility of ever acknowledging it... what's the point? Why have it be a community thread at all instead of "Nimrod's Son's private list of errors"?

Yeah, he didn't do that. In fact, he's accepted input from the community, repeatedly.

[ti'esar]

Yeah, he didn't do that. In fact, he's accepted input from the community, repeatedly.

Please explain why you believe the quote below doesn't qualify as dismissing both current input and the possibility of ever acknowledging it:


I agree there is only one way to spell "fascist". I disagree that there are any plausible reasons why that sign would have "not" repeated, and I've already spent more time than I care to discussing why. The strip came out years ago, and isn't getting changed regardless.

And neither is the OP, unless my hand is forced. :smalltongue:

[Kalmegil]

Please explain why you believe the quote below doesn't qualify as dismissing both current input and the possibility of ever acknowledging it:

First, he expressly acknowledges the input in posts throughout this thread.

Second, disagreement after repeated back and forth is not the same thing as dismissal. Nor is a decision not to continue a discussion that hasn't progressed in the last 3 or 4 exchanges.

Third, he expressly declares that he will change the post in the future given a particular condition being met. That's stating the possibility of actually accommodating the input, not just acknowledging it.

[Felhammer]

Isn't that still an art error? Or are you saying that that was a deliberate choice?

It is most likely a by product of not making the comic large enough while drawing (my bet is that the comic Rich drew was the same size as what we see (which is different than how comics are made today (they are drawn much, much larger then scaled down))), which was a deliberate choice.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You so entirely missed the point of what I was saying that I hardly no where to begin here.

My point is that if we post it as an error, and mention it might not be an error, it doesn't matter if all the reasons for each conclusion are listed, because the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.

No, it is not. The purpose of the thread, if any, is to catalogue errors. Participants are allowed to point out non-errors that should not be listed, which I did, as did several others. "Reasons" for the error, in this case, do not currently include "it might not be an error at all".


See above. I was definitively NOT talking about anyone being a final arbiter about what is or isn't an error. Rather that the reasons don't really matter if both conclusions are listed.
Good, so you agree that both conclusions should be listed. The OP doesn't include them, so presumably you agree with me, even while trying to jump down my throat.


(Also, something being the Simpsons doesn't make it not obscure. The Simpsons writers revel in using obscure things.
The Simpsons making a joke, no matter how originally obscure, means the joke is watched by such a large percentage of the world population that, at that point, it can no longer be considered obscure.


But that's irrelevant to the question of whether I've "mischaracterized" you. I wasn't attempting to summarize your position at all.)
No, you were just mischaracterising the request of several thread participants as having been "absolutely accommodated" when it is self-evidently been ignored.


As for you "rejecting" my attempt to minimize your explanation, I reject your explanation. Should either of us care either way? I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong.
I am not interested in your agreement with my position, only an acknowledgement that my, and other's, position is not accurately reflected in the OP


But the point is that both aspects of the relevant information (was this an author's error or not) are included in the entry right now.
No, they are not.


It doesn't matter for purposes of this thread. This thread is not about identifying error on the part of the characters. It's about identifying whether something is an author's error, and bringing it to his attention.
I seriously doubt RIch is at all interested in our input. At best, this is, like so many other curated threads, a way to pass the time that Rich will studiously avoid.


Her hasn't. He's listened repeatedly.
False.


In fact, he's accepted input from the community, repeatedly.
Does the entry still say that it is an error, whether on Rich or the Orc's part? Yes, it does. Thus, our input in this matter has not been accepted. Nor have we seen any rationale as to why the simple change suggested by Zherog has not been used.

Grey Wolf

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It is most likely a by product of not making the comic large enough while drawing (my bet is that the comic Rich drew was the same size as what we see (which is different than how comics are made today (they are drawn much, much larger then scaled down))), which was a deliberate choice.

I see. Thank you.

[Kalmegil]

No, it is not. The purpose of the thread, if any, is to catalogue errors. Participants are allowed to point out non-errors that should not be listed, which I did, as did several others. "Reasons" for the error, in this case, do not currently include "it might not be an error at all".

But there's no case to be made that there's consensus for removing it from the list. So the only quibble is whether the acknowledgement that this might not be an author error is complete enough for your taste. "Cataloging errors" doesn't include listing every possible reason this might not be an error. It's been acknowledged that the sign might say what the author intended it to say. That's enough.


Good, so you agree that both conclusions should be listed. The OP doesn't include them, so presumably you agree with me, even while trying to jump down my throat.

Here's my opinion: it should be listed as an error. Under the rules of curated threads, the listing should include a reference to the possibility that author intended the sign to say what it says. It does. Therefore I don't believe it needs to be changed.

I'm not sure why you keep so badly misinterpreting what I'm saying.


The Simpsons making a joke, no matter how originally obscure, means the joke is watched by such a large percentage of the world population that, at that point, it can no longer be considered obscure.

The Simpson joke doesn't fit any possible joke being made on that page. Homer is saying something to mislead his listener to think he's said something else.

What's the most likely outcome here: that one of the most common forms of typo (repeated short word) occurred in a sign clearly intended to echo a sign that is a common fixture in American parking garage (minus ye olden talk), or that the Giant is trying to portray the orc saying one thing ont he sign while trying to portray the opposite meaning to Hailey?


No, you were just mischaracterising the request of several thread participants as having been "absolutely accommodated" when it is self-evidently been ignored.

I said "absolutely accommodated" meaning "it is absolutely true that it has been accomodated." I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe the request was "absolutely accommodated" in the sense that it was completely accommodated.

And stop accusing me of mischaracterizing your position or request. I'm not. I haven't done it at all. I've said that part of your request was accommodated, and part not.


I am not interested in your agreement with my position, only an acknowledgement that my, and other's, position is not accurately reflected in the OP

I'm not going to acknowledge something I don't believe to be true. Specifically, I'll state that the part of your position that's actually relevant to this catalog of errors is reflected in the OP, and that the additional part of your position that you want reflected is not relevant to this thread.


No, they are not.

Yes, they are.


I seriously doubt RIch is at all interested in our input. At best, this is, like so many other curated threads, a way to pass the time that Rich will studiously avoid.

It's not at all clear to me how that's relevant here.


False.

No, what I said is true. He's obviously listened. He has, in fact, responded to this point multiple times.



Does the entry still say that it is an error, whether on Rich or the Orc's part? Yes, it does. Thus, our input in this matter has not been accepted.

I've addressed this several times already. The part of your input that I consider relevant to the thread has been accepted. You disagree with me about the "relevant" part. Fine. But to say he hasn't accepted any input is simply wrong. Accepting input does not mean agreeing with the entirety of that input.


Nor have we seen any rationale as to why the simple change suggested by Zherog has not been used.

The change was suggested after Nim's last post here. I've seen other curators, including I think you, get quite testy at people who continue to poke about updates at this pace.

[ChristianSt]

@Kalmegil:
First of all the distinction of error/no error as in "Rich didn't want it"/"Rich wanted it" is the definition you want to work with.
As it seems that the posters currently stating their opinion isn't acknowledged is the distinction between it is actual an error or not, whether it was deliberate on Rich's part or not is another distinction. Neither you or the OP (or Grey Wolf or me or any other poster) have the right to declare which is the right one or what is relevant to this thread or not (other than that is related to errors in the OotS - because that is the topic of this thread). Us saying: "We don't like it the way it is" and you basically saying that you are ok with things as they are (and think that everything is all right) is not in any way helping this discussion.

And that is the point of my color analogy which you doesn't seem to understand. Maybe letters work better? The initial situation was that there is a listing "A" is in the OP. I (and others) said: I don't think "A" is correct, it should be "B". After a bit of discussion I said "Mh ok, maybe can we just list 'A or B'?". Right now the OP lists "A or C". Yet you want to tell me (and Grey Wolf) that there is only the category A and not-A so we should be fine with C, while we try to make you understand that we don't care about C, but want our opinion (B! which is not the same as not-A) acknowledged.


Also the problem for me isn't the update pace (because I can understand when someone needs time to do changes or that people are restrict by real life or that it is a better workload to do changes at a specific time).
For me the problem is that he just flat out said that he says he is (more or less) automatically the majority, that my opinion is not as relevant as his opinion (or at least there isn't any other way I can read his statement) and the fact that he explicitly sad that he only changes the OP "if forced too". And that for me clearly says: "unless some authority shows up I'm doing what I want without caring about other posters!":

But two or three posters does not a consensus make, especially when most people who agree with me won't even bother posting to say so unless specifically called to do so (although, to be fair, Zherog did - which evens the score from where I'm standing :smallwink:) - people rarely weigh in on issues like this unless they specifically disagree. And unless I see something to that effect, the OP will remain unchanged. By your own admisson, you are not a native English speaker. I am, and have spent every single day I've ever spent on this Earth living around people who use double negatives in the way your link illustrates. You are of course free to disbelieve me when I say this is not one of those examples, but my entire life suggests otherwise to me.

[emphasis mine]

I agree there is only one way to spell "fascist". I disagree that there are any plausible reasons why that sign would have "not" repeated, and I've already spent more time than I care to discussing why. The strip came out years ago, and isn't getting changed regardless.

And neither is the OP, unless my hand is forced. :smalltongue:
[emphasis mine]

Note that both posts were written at a time where at least as many posters said that they don't agree with him on that part as posters with the same opinion (including Nimrod's Son). And after I made the suggestion of a compromise.


And yes, while he responded to what I and others said, pretty much the only reaction on this topic was "I think your wrong, because..." without acknowledging that numerous posters didn't agree with him.

From what what you (and the OP) said, the main goal (which is debatable) is to provide a listing a list of errors for Rich. Even with the suggestion to make a compromise in listing it as "possible an error or possible no error" (or something similar) that would still provide the same value to Rich. Yet even that compromise was just ignored, too.

He didn't say "I will wait a bit and see how the thread thinks about it" or something like that. He just said "the OP will remain unchanged".

[ti'esar]

As a corollary to my previous statements, I should note that there's nothing wrong with Nimrod's Son relying only on his own opinion if this isn't meant to be a community thread.

[ChristianSt]

As a corollary to my previous statements, I should note that there's nothing wrong with Nimrod's Son relying only on his own opinion if this isn't meant to be a community thread.

But the problem is there is not really a chance that this is not a community thread:


From the thread title and the OP, there isn't anything that even goes into the direction that this is "Nimrod's Son's list of found errors". It just looks like any other community thread that can be found in this forum.
Even if (1) is only a error and this is meant to be for his own entertainment, still the way how this forums works, it would kinda turn automatically in a community thread: Since for each topic there is only one thread allowed, this is the only place where something like this can be discussed.
[Or are you saying that if I or Grey Wolf or anybody else wanted to start a list of OotS-Errors that are following a different opinion, that would be another topic and thus allow for another thread?]


I maintain* a thread for a collection of Kickstarter Rewards (see my signature of you want to check the thread). If people show up and say "I don't think the Signature Doodles should be included in this thread." I cannot just say "ok - but they are Kickstarter rewards, so go bother someone else with your opinion.".

I could only say something like: "Fine that is your opinion. I have another opinion. Right now I haven't heard another poster saying anything against it (and some even posted theirs here to include them, so I think that is one way to say 'Doodles are ok here'). But if another poster shows up who doesn't want them, we will figure something out. Maybe simple doing a vote or something along the lines. (Unless there is a significant larger amount of posters clarifying their opinion that they want the Doodles here before that, thus making any vote obsolete.)"


*Though from the forum rules it is past the necromancy threshold, which could make the statement "I maintain a thread" wrong. But nevertheless I think I'm still maintaining it [In fact I still add new stuff to it if I get it, and if someone would point out any problems etc. I would try to fix them]. And if Crayon Drawings start showing up in the hopefully near future, I will go ahead and ask the mods what to do about the thread (whether I'm allowed to revive it, if I should go start a new thread, or what I should do about it.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But there's no case to be made that there's consensus for removing it from the list.
And indeed, no-one is asking it to be removed, so why bring it up?


So the only quibble is whether the acknowledgement that this might not be an author error is complete enough for your taste. "Cataloging errors" doesn't include listing every possible reason this might not be an error. It's been acknowledged that the sign might say what the author intended it to say. That's enough.
No, it has not been acknowledged at all. It still says that is an error. I disagree.


Here's my opinion: it should be listed as an error. Under the rules of curated threads, the listing should include a reference to the possibility that author intended the sign to say what it says. It does. Therefore I don't believe it needs to be changed.
The curated thread rules mention nothing of the sort. It says that if there is a disagreement over the contents of the OP - which there is - the curator should attempt to determine consensus. Saying "I hear you, but I'm not changing the OP, regardless" is not establishing consensus.


I'm not sure why you keep so badly misinterpreting what I'm saying.
As I understand it, you are saying that the OP already reflects my opinion just as it reflects your opinion. I do not believe this to be true.


The Simpson joke doesn't fit any possible joke being made on that page. Homer is saying something to mislead his listener to think he's said something else.
Yep, exactly like the orc mislead Haley into thinking that he had said he would care for the horses.


What's the most likely outcome here: that one of the most common forms of typo (repeated short word)
[citation needed]


occurred in a sign clearly intended to echo a sign that is a common fixture in American parking garage (minus ye olden talk), or that the Giant is trying to portray the orc saying one thing ont he sign while trying to portray the opposite meaning to Hailey?
The second. Because it is funnier.


I said "absolutely accommodated" meaning "it is absolutely true that it has been accomodated." I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe the request was "absolutely accommodated" in the sense that it was completely accommodated.
Yeah, those two sentences mean exactly the same. Since the request has not been accommodated, I could not care less if you feel that the adjective to "accommodated" should be "absolutely" or "completely".


And stop accusing me of mischaracterizing your position or request. I'm not. I haven't done it at all. I've said that part of your request was accommodated, and part not.
And I am saying that you are wrong, that the suggestion that it be listed as possibly not an error on either Rich's or the orc's part has not been addressed.


I'm not going to acknowledge something I don't believe to be true. Specifically, I'll state that the part of your position that's actually relevant to this catalog of errors is reflected in the OP, and that the additional part of your position that you want reflected is not relevant to this thread.
Nothing is more relevant to this thread than the possibility that an entry might not be an error.


Yes, they are.
According to you: "the relevant information (was this an author's error or not) are included in the entry right now."
According to the OP: 'not not' is either an error on the author's part, or an error in the orc's part.
The third alternative, that it is not an error at all, is still not there. So no, the entry continues to be incomplete.


It's not at all clear to me how that's relevant here.
You keep saying that this thread exists to serve as editorial help to Rich. I believe that to be wrong. What Rich may or may not do with the OP is irrelevant to what should be written in the OP.


No, what I said is true. He's obviously listened. He has, in fact, responded to this point multiple times.
[citation needed] To be clear, I want you to list every time that the curator has responded to our request that he change the entry to accept the possibility of it not being an error on anyone's part, and to do so in the same font size as everything else.


I've addressed this several times already. The part of your input that I consider relevant to the thread has been accepted. You disagree with me about the "relevant" part. Fine. But to say he hasn't accepted any input is simply wrong. Accepting input does not mean agreeing with the entirety of that input.
No, what he has done is say he was accepting the input, and then writing something no-one asked for. "It is not an error" is not the same as "It was an error on the orc's part". If you ask me to add "MitD's eyes might be gold" to "MitD's eyes are yellow" and I instead write "Mitd eyes are yellow, or maybe blue" that is not accepting your input.


The change was suggested after Nim's last post here. I've seen other curators, including I think you, get quite testy at people who continue to poke about updates at this pace.
Yes, which is why I'm not poking Nim, I'm poking you, who continue to say that my concerns have been addressed, when they have not. I can be patient and see if Nim will make the change. I will not, however, agree with you that the change has already been made.

Grey Wolf

[NCoffin]

So there seems to be three ways of taking this:

1) An unintentional error
2) An intentional error
3) Not an error at all

Out of curiosity, is there anyone who would be vehemently opposed to simply changing the note in the list from what it reads now to something like (possibly not an error)? That way it can cover both 2) and 3). The current note only really addresses 2).

This seems like a reasonable compromise; as far as I can tell, everyone's opinions would be covered.

[malloyd]

You keep saying that this thread exists to serve as editorial help to Rich. I believe that to be wrong. What Rich may or may not do with the OP is irrelevant to what should be written in the OP.


What other useful purpose can it serve? Generating endless arguments over what is and is not an error doesn't seem to qualify. The only other one would be to cut down on new "I have discovered an error" threads rehashing something that's come up repeatedly already.

Also, at what point does the absence of a consensus for changing things the way you want them changed cause you to stop complaining? I'm not seeing any strong support emerging here.

Personally, I'd propose changing the text from claiming this is a list of errors to claiming it is a list of suggested errors, and admitting anything that gets a substantial number of nominations, even if some of us are absolutely certain it's right, unless the person expressing the opinion to the contrary is Rich.

For either of the two useful purposes I can see above inclusiveness is more important than consensus something is definitely wrong, if there's a reasonable chance it is, or if someone can think it is, it should probably go here.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The current note only really addresses 2).
For the record, that is the point I have been trying to establish in all my previous posts. I suspect it may have been getting lost in the noise.


This seems like a reasonable compromise; as far as I can tell, everyone's opinions would be covered.
Yep, that is ChristianSt's and Zherog's suggestion, in a nutshell. I'm in favour, and won't speak for anyone else.


What other useful purpose can it serve?
Cataloging.


Also, at what point does the absence of a consensus for changing things the way you want them changed cause you to stop complaining? I'm not seeing any strong support emerging here.

At the point where clear consensus is reached by some agreed upon method. Voting is suggested, but not the only way. For example, as per Zherog's suggestion, by actually reflecting all the stated points of view in the OP.


Personally, I'd propose changing the text from claiming this is a list of errors to claiming it is a list of suggested errors, and admitting anything that gets a substantial number of nominations, even if some of us are absolutely certain it's right, unless the person expressing the opinion to the contrary is Rich.

Define "substantial". 99% of all the items in the OP have exactly 1 nomination. Do we need to go through all of them until they have X number? And if enough people with lack of nautical knowledge vote for "hit the head", do we let it be (assuming no Word of Rich)? That is wrong. A list of words that might be wrong, or might be an expression out of common knowledge is a hodgepodge. A list of errors should contain errors.

Grey Wolf

[Kalmegil]

After much careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion I no longer care.

[Zherog]

For the record, that is the point I have been trying to establish in all my previous posts. I suspect it may have been getting lost in the noise.


Yep, that is ChristianSt's and Zherog's suggestion, in a nutshell. I'm in favour, and won't speak for anyone else.

<<snip>>

Grey Wolf

OK, so I think as a community we're generally in agreement. Can we table further discussion until Nim returns and weighs in one way or another? I mean sure, if Nim pops up and says no to what appears to be a pretty strong consensus, then by all means we can continue this fascinating discussion. But until then, I'm really not sure what the point is of continuing to flog this poor equine...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png