Quake3World

Hey Geoff, still got that scratched widescreen CRT monitor?

Hey Geoff, still got that widescreen CRT monitor with a scratch on it? (Scratched with a rock, for those that don't remember.)
I found a way to remove it. It's for arcade cabs that still use CRT monitors, but it should work just the same for yours:
http://wiki.arcadeotaku.com/w/Remove_Monitor_Scratches

DTS wrote:Hey Geoff, still got that scratched widescreen CRT monitor?

Hey Geoff, still got that widescreen CRT monitor with a scratch on it?

Skip your meds this morning?

Look matey, I write the title at the top aswell, and that way I wanted to say it wouldn't fit in the title field. So I wrote it under the title, however simmilar it was. Understand? Good.

Hey, does anyone know if Geoff still got that scratched widescreen CRT monitor?

The way I mean those 2 sentances is different. Something that "is scratched" has more than one scratch on it, whereas something that "has a scratch on it" obviously only has one scratch on it.

In the case of Geoff's monitor, he said it had one massive scratch on it. Hence the distinction.

I've differentiated this way of stating that one or more scratches are on something for many years. I know cause I had a conversation with someone about it years ago and thought nothing of it at the time

I heard Geoff had a scratch on his old CRT monitor, does anyone know if he ever found a way to fix it?

I heard Geoff had a scratch on his old CRT monitor, does anyone know if he ever found a way to fix it?

I heard Geoff had a scratch on his old CRT monitor, does anyone know if he ever found a way to fix it?

I'm not sure about the scratch on Geoff's old CRT monitor, I am sure someone on here will know?

I'm not sure about the scratch on Geoff's old CRT monitor, I am sure someone on here will know?

I'm not sure about the scratch on Geoff's old CRT monitor, I am sure someone on here will know?

DTS wrote:
I've differentiated this way of stating that one or more scratches are on something for many years. I know cause I had a conversation with someone about it years ago and thought nothing of it at the time

Scratched is scratched, whether it is one scratch or many. If your 'someone' agreed with you, they are an idiot too.

Scourge wrote:

DTS wrote:
I've differentiated this way of stating that one or more scratches are on something for many years. I know cause I had a conversation with someone about it years ago and thought nothing of it at the time

Scratched is scratched, whether it is one scratch or many. If your 'someone' agreed with you, they are an idiot too.

No, see, something scratched, has scratches on it, whereas something that has a scratch on it, only has one scratch on it.

When Mac in Predator says "not a fucking scratch!", he means they didn't get grazed by even one bullet, or get one hand to hand combat wound, or one shrapnel wound. Not one thing touched them. See, numbers matter. "Not even one!"

cool story, bro

chill rap, nigga

pleasant narrative, chap

So, you're trying to say that if something has one scratch on it, it's not scratched?

Please continue to try to validate this. This ought to get interesting.

edit: and that stupid predator comment did absolutely nothing for your argument. Didn't make sense in the least.

DTS just learned about plurals and wants to share his knowledge with all.

DTS just learned about how to use a plural word and wants to share his knowledge with all.




DTS is either really dumb or trying to backpedal by explaining himself with stupid.

obsidian wrote:
DTS is either really dumb or trying to backpedal by explaining himself with stupid.

I'm going with both.

Scourge wrote:So, you're trying to say that if something has one scratch on it, it's not scratched?

Please continue to try to validate this. This ought to get interesting.

edit: and that stupid predator comment did absolutely nothing for your argument. Didn't make sense in the least.

OK, I wasn't going to, but since you insist:
A scratch would usually, from the beginning of scratches in the world, have been from nails on a hand or claws on a paw. That giives 3 or more scratches, as a paw would have 3 claws, hence, "scratched" is more than one scratch. It could miss, be off target, so it would only be 2 scratches, or 1 scratch. In the case of 1 scratch only, that would be "just a scratch", not "scratched", ONE scratch, "A scratch", ONE scratch, not "scratched". "You didn't get scratched, that's just one scratch." Only one of the claws got you. (Or one nail, it could be.)

Hey Geoff, still got that scratched widescreen CRT monitor?

obsidian wrote:DTS just learned about plurals and wants to share his knowledge with all.

DTS wrote:hence, "scratched" is more than one scratch.

I would like to retract my above statement, DTS has NOT learned about plurals and thinks past-tense is a plural.

DTS was drops on his head as a baby which is why he has all these screws up ideaed.

if that screen could talk ey imagine the tales of ownage!

Lol poor ppl...

DTS wrote:
OK, I wasn't going to, but since you insist:
A scratch would usually, from the beginning of scratches in the world, have been from nails on a hand or claws on a paw. That giives 3 or more scratches, as a paw would have 3 claws, hence, "scratched" is more than one scratch. It could miss, be off target, so it would only be 2 scratches, or 1 scratch. In the case of 1 scratch only, that would be "just a scratch", not "scratched", ONE scratch, "A scratch", ONE scratch, not "scratched". "You didn't get scratched, that's just one scratch." Only one of the claws got you. (Or one nail, it could be.)

-ed is a past participle, meaning it's used to indicate tense, not quantity. It is a noun modifier.

More importantly, past participles have no way of telling us if Geoff still has that scratched widescreen CRT monitor.

DTS wrote:

Scourge wrote:So, you're trying to say that if something has one scratch on it, it's not scratched?

Please continue to try to validate this. This ought to get interesting.

edit: and that stupid predator comment did absolutely nothing for your argument. Didn't make sense in the least.

OK, I wasn't going to, but since you insist:
A scratch would usually, from the beginning of scratches in the world, have been from nails on a hand or claws on a paw. That giives 3 or more scratches, as a paw would have 3 claws, hence, "scratched" is more than one scratch. It could miss, be off target, so it would only be 2 scratches, or 1 scratch. In the case of 1 scratch only, that would be "just a scratch", not "scratched", ONE scratch, "A scratch", ONE scratch, not "scratched". "You didn't get scratched, that's just one scratch." Only one of the claws got you. (Or one nail, it could be.)

The ignorance is strong in this one. Did you come up with all that in your head? Were you eating paint chips instead of paying attention in school? The word scratched has no bearing on the number of scratches other than it means there is at least one. I think you owe it to yourself to go back to school and at least try to get some kind of education.

jesus christ this cant be happening.

NO TRUTH-HANDLER YOU

This is screaming for photoshop.

Holy shit