J
John Larkin
Guest
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Miles, KE5FX
Guest
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:10:09â¯AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Will check it out, thanks.
Another interesting one, especially for the machining connoisseur:
https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Moore_Tools/Foundations_of_Mechanical_Accuracy.pdf
It costs a king\'s ransom to buy from Amazon, but Moore still sells it directly for a mere arm+leg ($190 when I ordered my copy):
https://mooretool.com/about-us/publications/
-- john, KE5FX
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Will check it out, thanks.
Another interesting one, especially for the machining connoisseur:
https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Moore_Tools/Foundations_of_Mechanical_Accuracy.pdf
It costs a king\'s ransom to buy from Amazon, but Moore still sells it directly for a mere arm+leg ($190 when I ordered my copy):
https://mooretool.com/about-us/publications/
-- john, KE5FX
M
Mike Monett VE3BTI
Guest
\"John Miles, KE5FX\" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote:
There are plenty of books and articles available on the web and on utube that
say much the same, but more modern. No King\'s ransom. For free.
--
MRM
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:10:09â¯AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Will check it out, thanks.
Another interesting one, especially for the machining connoisseur:
https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Moore_Tools/Fo
undations_of_Mechanical_Accuracy.pdf
It costs a king\'s ransom to buy from Amazon, but Moore still sells it
directly for a mere arm+leg ($190 when I ordered my copy):
https://mooretool.com/about-us/publications/
-- john, KE5FX
There are plenty of books and articles available on the web and on utube that
say much the same, but more modern. No King\'s ransom. For free.
--
MRM
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather..
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather..
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:26:27â¯PM UTC-4, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
All they wanted to do was make interchangeable parts for guns, equivalent to a moon shot in its day.
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:10:09â¯AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Will check it out, thanks.
Another interesting one, especially for the machining connoisseur:
https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Moore_Tools/Foundations_of_Mechanical_Accuracy.pdf
It costs a king\'s ransom to buy from Amazon, but Moore still sells it directly for a mere arm+leg ($190 when I ordered my copy):
https://mooretool.com/about-us/publications/
-- john, KE5FX
All they wanted to do was make interchangeable parts for guns, equivalent to a moon shot in its day.
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:43:40â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Popular science writing is entertainment. If you seriously want to learn about science, you read rigorous text-books.
You can be entertaining and still accurately convey to your readers the gist of what is going on. British science writing for newspapers isn\'t great because most of the reporters don\'t know enough about science. Dutch science writer do better, and the crew that write for New Scientist do just as well, and have been doing well since they first started publishing back in 1956. I\'ve only been a subscriber since the 1980s, though I did read it from time to time before then.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incoherent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Popular science writing is entertainment. If you seriously want to learn about science, you read rigorous text-books.
You can be entertaining and still accurately convey to your readers the gist of what is going on. British science writing for newspapers isn\'t great because most of the reporters don\'t know enough about science. Dutch science writer do better, and the crew that write for New Scientist do just as well, and have been doing well since they first started publishing back in 1956. I\'ve only been a subscriber since the 1980s, though I did read it from time to time before then.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:39:39â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
And they faked the result. The heap of parts they presented to be assembled into guns at random was a whole lot more uniform than the bulk of their output.
The did get better, and measuring what they had actually made and sorting it into compatible sets of parts wasn\'t all that time consuming, but it wasn\'t what they had promised to deliver.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:26:27â¯PM UTC-4, John Miles, KE5FX wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:10:09â¯AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Will check it out, thanks.
Another interesting one, especially for the machining connoisseur:
https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/15_Mfrs_Publications/Moore_Tools/Foundations_of_Mechanical_Accuracy.pdf
It costs a king\'s ransom to buy from Amazon, but Moore still sells it directly for a mere arm+leg ($190 when I ordered my copy):
https://mooretool.com/about-us/publications/
All they wanted to do was make interchangeable parts for guns, equivalent to a moon shot in its day.
And they faked the result. The heap of parts they presented to be assembled into guns at random was a whole lot more uniform than the bulk of their output.
The did get better, and measuring what they had actually made and sorting it into compatible sets of parts wasn\'t all that time consuming, but it wasn\'t what they had promised to deliver.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
The guy is an excellent writer and has done an amazing amount of
fascinating research. Please don\'t read it.
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
The guy is an excellent writer and has done an amazing amount of
fascinating research. Please don\'t read it.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be
acted, not read.
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be
acted, not read.
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:05:40â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Bill Gates called this one a \'masterpiece\'- which is the equivalent of \'as seen on tv\' marketing.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/666342/how-the-world-really-works-by-vaclav-smil/
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:43:40â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09â¯PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incoherent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Popular science writing is entertainment. If you seriously want to learn about science, you read rigorous text-books.
You can be entertaining and still accurately convey to your readers the gist of what is going on. British science writing for newspapers isn\'t great because most of the reporters don\'t know enough about science. Dutch science writer do better, and the crew that write for New Scientist do just as well, and have been doing well since they first started publishing back in 1956. I\'ve only been a subscriber since the 1980s, though I did read it from time to time before then.
Bill Gates called this one a \'masterpiece\'- which is the equivalent of \'as seen on tv\' marketing.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/666342/how-the-world-really-works-by-vaclav-smil/
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:29:13â¯AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be
acted, not read.
I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:13â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
That\'s why I picked them out.
> I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
Tell that to the Royal Shakespeare Company who present to large audiences every year. I\'ve never been in an audience who had any trouble picking up on it. I was on their subscription list for most of the time I lived in England, and got to see most of their productions.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:29:13â¯AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be acted, not read.
That\'s why I picked them out.
> I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
Tell that to the Royal Shakespeare Company who present to large audiences every year. I\'ve never been in an audience who had any trouble picking up on it. I was on their subscription list for most of the time I lived in England, and got to see most of their productions.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:45:23â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Those people are delusional.
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:13â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:29:13â¯AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be acted, not read.
That\'s why I picked them out.
I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
Tell that to the Royal Shakespeare Company who present to large audiences every year. I\'ve never been in an audience who had any trouble picking up on it. I was on their subscription list for most of the time I lived in England, and got to see most of their productions.
Those people are delusional.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:01:27â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The only person here who is delusional is you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Shakespeare_Company
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:45:23â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:13â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:29:13â¯AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be acted, not read.
That\'s why I picked them out.
I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
Tell that to the Royal Shakespeare Company who present to large audiences every year. I\'ve never been in an audience who had any trouble picking up on it. I was on their subscription list for most of the time I lived in England, and got to see most of their productions.
Those people are delusional.
The only person here who is delusional is you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Shakespeare_Company
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
You say that like it\'s a bad thing.
Shakespeare made me move from New Orleans to San Francisco.
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:45:23?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:13?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:29:13?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:39:27?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:04?PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:10:09?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Author is British, so the prose is most likely a pile of incoherent blather.
He has worked by Conde Nast, so he can presumably dumb down his output to conform to American tastes.
He\'s written a few other books which have been well received. One of his books was a New York Times best seller.
An endorsement from John Larkin isn\'t exactly a compelling reason to buy a book, but this one could be okay.
Shakespeare. Jane Austen and P.G. Wodehouse were also British, and none of them wrote incohrent blather.
They weren\'t pop-science writers. Their work was just a bunch of entertainment.
Those are my three favorite authors, although Shakespeare should be acted, not read.
That\'s why I picked them out.
I read Shakespeare\'s work is categorized as prose poetry. If you\'re not native to 16th century England, you can\'t pick up on it.
Tell that to the Royal Shakespeare Company who present to large audiences every year. I\'ve never been in an audience who had any trouble picking up on it. I was on their subscription list for most of the time I lived in England, and got to see most of their productions.
Those people are delusional.
You say that like it\'s a bad thing.
Shakespeare made me move from New Orleans to San Francisco.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 4:10:09â¯AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
Of course the word \"fabulous\" implies that it is about fables, rather than documented history. If John Larkin doesn\'t know enough about words to avoid the picking the wrong one, can we trust his book recommendations?
\"Reliable book\" would be a better recommendation for something that concentrated on the process of making things that were precisely what there were intended to be.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Of course the word \"fabulous\" implies that it is about fables, rather than documented history. If John Larkin doesn\'t know enough about words to avoid the picking the wrong one, can we trust his book recommendations?
\"Reliable book\" would be a better recommendation for something that concentrated on the process of making things that were precisely what there were intended to be.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
E
ehsjr
Guest
On 7/6/2023 10:29 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
It appears you not as aware of the meaning of \"fabulous\" as
he is.
From:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fabulous
Britannica Dictionary definition of FABULOUS
1
[more fabulous; most fabulous]
a
: very good
I had a fabulous time.
The weather has been fabulous.
<snip>
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 4:10:09â¯AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Of course the word \"fabulous\" implies that it is about fables, rather than documented history. If John Larkin doesn\'t know enough about words to avoid the picking the wrong one, can we trust his book recommendations?
It appears you not as aware of the meaning of \"fabulous\" as
he is.
From:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fabulous
Britannica Dictionary definition of FABULOUS
1
[more fabulous; most fabulous]
a
: very good
I had a fabulous time.
The weather has been fabulous.
<snip>
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:41:02â¯AM UTC+10, ehsjr wrote:
That is the first meaning. You snipped the next one, which is the fundamental meaning from which the first meaning is derived.
2
literary : not real
fabulous beasts
: told about in a story
a fabulous [=mythical] creature
â fabulously adverb
fabulously rich
a fabulously successful executive
â fabulousness noun [noncount]
--
Bill Sloman., Sydney
On 7/6/2023 10:29 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 4:10:09â¯AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
The Perfectionists by Simon Winchester.
About the evolution of the concept of precision.
Of course the word \"fabulous\" implies that it is about fables, rather than documented history. If John Larkin doesn\'t know enough about words to avoid the picking the wrong one, can we trust his book recommendations?
It appears you not as aware of the meaning of \"fabulous\" as
he is.
From:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fabulous
Britannica Dictionary definition of FABULOUS
1
[more fabulous; most fabulous]
a
: very good
I had a fabulous time.
The weather has been fabulous.
That is the first meaning. You snipped the next one, which is the fundamental meaning from which the first meaning is derived.
2
literary : not real
fabulous beasts
: told about in a story
a fabulous [=mythical] creature
â fabulously adverb
fabulously rich
a fabulously successful executive
â fabulousness noun [noncount]
--
Bill Sloman., Sydney