« first day (1616 days earlier)      last day (1919 days later) » 

AIQ
AIQ
08:43
@snailcar @ColleenV Hi, I found a user who never accepted one single answer out of his 79 questions. But he does seem to know how SE works, he has answered 72 questions and some of his answers have been accepted. Its puzzling how he didn't pick one answer as "accepted" from 79 questions.
 
3 hours later…
ColleenV
ColleenV
12:11
@AIQ We can't force people to accept answers. There are many reasons why they may not be accepting answers. Maybe they don't know how their answers got accepted or think they don't have the reputation to do it. You could gently point them to the help article ell.stackexchange.com/help/someone-answers if you think they might be receptive to it.
However, maybe they don't think the answers they're getting are helpful enough to accept or they're afraid accepting will prevent them from getting more answers.
 
10 hours later…
AIQ
AIQ
22:07
@snailcar This is a conditional statement, right? "What Jem did was something I’d do as a matter of course had I not been under Atticus’s interdict"
the "had I not been" is essentially "if I had not been"
then that is conditional
please tell me it is
@userr2684291 @M.A.R.
Anonymous
Yes, it is.
AIQ
AIQ
22:34
now I am down a rabbit hole. If its a type 3, it should look like this: Had I not been under ..., I would have done the same thing...
mixed conditionals
are a nightmare to figure out
Anonymous
23:18
Oh, I don't use that type one, type two, type three system.
Anonymous
This one is an inverted conditional.
Anonymous
Inverted conditionals are an alternative to the more basic conditional, I suppose the one you called Type 3 (though since I don't use that system I'm not certain). They're somewhat formal in style; they don't permit the more informal subjunctive was and require were (were I to agree, not *was I to agree); they don't permit contracted negatives (had it not been for X, not *hadn't it been for X).
Anonymous
Typically the inverted form is used only with had, were, or should.
AIQ
AIQ
23:35
yes that is what it is... its hard to explain this - I answered a question. I knew it was mixed conditional but a comment made me second guess.

« first day (1616 days earlier)      last day (1919 days later) »