Still more on Prius runaway

[salty]

Wikipedia? LOL! How about maybe a cite from the OED or at leaast the AP stylebook?

[salty]

No, "Typo" is jargon. People who teach English often have a mental block when it comes to jargon. It freaks them out.

[trader4]

=A0Balloon Boy

way.- Hide quoted text -

I watched it on live TV too as it happened. And from everything that I heard it was never assumed that the boy was inside the helium filled balloon itself. There was plenty of discussion about a box beneath the balloon, even reports that some people had seen something fall off the balloon and the possibility that was the box seperating. Without knowing the exact contruction of the balloon and given the stories being told by the parents and the other children, I don't think it would have been reasonable for anyone to conclude the story was bogus because the boy couldn't be breathing helium.

[h]

Uh huh. PLONK!

[tmclone]

If it were a contraction then a single typo would be spelled "typo'r" for "typographical erroR". Since it's "typo", then CLEARLY, "typos" is plural, NOT a contraction. What part of that don't you get?

[Kurt Ullman]

According to Merriam_Webster and other dictionaries, the plural for type is typos (with no apostrophe).

[Ed Pawlowski]

LOL all you want. Prove me wrong. See more below.

/'ta?po?/ Show Spelled[tahy-poh noun,plural-pos. Informal.

of the topic Typos are discussed in the following places at Britannica.

Pronounced: /'ta?po?/ Function: noun Inflected forms: plural ty·pos

[Kurt Ullman]

The AP style book has no listing for typo either way (at least my copy of the 6th trade edition). Neither the APA Publication Manual or the AMA Manual of Style-- although that doesn't really surprise me, it is another data point. As I mentioned earlier, Merriam_Webster (among others) says that it is typos.

[Kurt Ullman]

Further. My copy of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged Edition) also says it is typos. Since this particular edition was copyrighted in 1967, it appears that usage has been in vogue for quite awhile..

[Harry K]

=A0Balloon Boy

way.- Hide quoted text -

Now did I call you stupid or anything of the sort? If you aren't willing to discuss things civilly, why bother. I have my 'opinion' (and backed it with a cite), you have hyours (and backed it with cites) - obviously we aren't both wrong. We both think we are right so that is where it stands now and apparently forever.

Harry K

[Harry K]

'. =A0Balloon Boy

being in there

side the helium

away.- Hide quoted text -

Well, then you are stuck with why they were frantically searching for him inside it at the end.

I sure would like to see a cite (I can't find one) on what the searchers had (or have) to say on the subject.

Harry K

[trader4]

es'. =A0Balloon Boy

id being in there

ot nobody, even

. =A0You cannot

inside the helium

or denied that

e had seen the

it away.- Hide quoted text -

What would you do? Just walk away and not take the extra 5 minutes to look everywhere? How would anyone at the scene know exactly how the balloon was or was not constructed. I could make a balloon that looks round, like a single compartment, and in fact have a divider in it with the helium in the upper part and a separate section at the bottom with air that a child could fit into. The live videos of the balloon that I saw wouldn't lead me to believe it was impossible for a boy to be in the bottom of it. In fact, it looked like there could be a space at the bottom for a boy. I see a trend here. Just like in the cases of all the runaway Toyotas, you are quick to jump to conclusions and just close the book without all the facts or a complete investigation. If not, I don't see why you would expect rescue workers to do anything other than do a complete search of the balloon.

[salty]

away.- Hide quoted text -

I think the Balloon Boy, and the Prius threads have really run their course. They are just going in circles and are repeating themselves. We need to find something new on which everyone can take intractable (even when contradicted by photographic proof) positions.

[salty]

See what I mean!

[salty]

Are you guys done chasing your tails yet?

LOL

[Kurt Ullman]

Probably not. I was involved in the periphery of a couple NTSB truck cases as a medic and in both cases, the NTSB and the locals worked together. No need to take it DC for the investigation when there is a perfectly good lab near by.

[salty]

 Balloon Boy

the helium

away.- Hide quoted text -

What cite was that? I provided links PHOTOGRAPHS of the box, including a phot with the door open.

You claim something that NO ONE else claims, and you say you base it on listening to the radio.

Sorry, but "troll" fits you like a glove on this subject.

[salty]

The investigation is still in progress. NO ONE can conclusively rule anything in or out yet. The guy's past smells funny, but the investigation has to look past that and find out what happened or didn't happen. People have been convicted and jailed for raping hookers, ya know.

The case has not nearly been closed.

[bud--]

I believe the NTSB looked at the car. That would probably preclude the CHP investigating unless they thought there might be a criminal case. (Everyone probably looked at the front and back brake rotors/pads and E brake.) The most interesting information probably comes from the "black box", which is read by Toyota.

I don't remember any report of a CHP *investigation* (other than brake condition).

[mm]

I think I'm just the right amount of paranoid.

It may well support "most", which is all you say, but it can't support "all". There are always new things that arise.

One of the things that convinces me is the way they say flatly, There are no electronic problems. Not, We have found no electronic problems. (but we're still looking)

This says to me that a) they don't understand the nature of testing and finding, b) the statement is made more to reassure than to report what is known, c) they are bluffing, and may have done even less testing than one would think.

I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be an electronics or programming problem. No one has said anytyhing afaik about revieweing the computer code. They should have someone who's never seen it before go over it, line by line.