RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 25, 2017 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) You are welcome to disagree, but you are still wrong. You have taken something which has an interval level of measurement, and added an extra quality, that being continuous nature which allows for portions of whole parts, which in this case is nonsense. I bow to your knowledge of track, both real and model, and am extremely grateful for your gift to the hobby in the form of Templot, but please don’t try to argue with me over levels of measurement and the grammatically correct way to talk about them: this is something about which I am extremely knowledgeable and totally sure of the facts - no my facts, but the actual facts. You can continue the point if you wish, but you will only end up looking stupid. Mostly because I will simply ignore any comments from you as being vexatious. Besides, I was correcting the spelling of “meter” (US English) to “metre”, and then moving on to expressions of quantity. Had I realised that it was sold in yards, I would have made that point, but the use of less instead of fewer would have still been the subject of my (humourous, I thought - I certainly meant it that way) remark. Edit: autocorrect! Edited October 25, 2017 by Regularity 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2017 I maintain my position. Take something else, say tyre pressure. Measured in pounds-per-square-inch. Would you really say "the back tyre is fewer on pounds per square inch than it should be"? Everyone else says less, or lower, or below, or some other term applicable to a continuous variable. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 OK; enough. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts