Earlier this morning accessing a sister site (which for reasons of protocol must remain anonymous), selecting a forum, and picking up specific thread, took forever; The problem didn't happen invoking other sites and so I am wondering if anyone else had the same experience

If so it was no doubt attributable to a software glitch entailing exquisite timing, eg, in which a specific instruction propagated on the Web travels in circles until it finally reaches its destination. Typically it may take as long as 5 minutes to get a single response while a couple of the little green rectangles languish in the box at the bottom of the screen

I have long suspected the phenom was created by our White Knight in order to torment us from time to time so we thereby come to better appreciate His works

So I have coined the term "Gates Loop" to describe it. Do you have a better term

But it has to include "Gates." Another example of the Gates Loop, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, is the deletion of your followup--while you are actually in the process of composing it--but pause a couple of minutes for instance to go look up a word

Perhaps the Gates Loop is also responsible for the continual and repeated appearance of "Warning: Page has Expired" message again and again, over and over, that so very much slows our navigation through some boards

More such examples welcome

Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet, not Bill Gates.

There are all sorts of reasons why a particular site is temporarily slow, but the most common is that one (sometimes more) server on your route to the site is having problems. Your message to the site's server goes through a number of 'hops' to reach it and return, and if there are any problems on the way the site will be slow. Somebody else using a different ISP will take a different route and not have any problems. Usually the operators of the malfunctioning router will quickly discover the problem and it'll be taken out of service or fixed fairly quickly, but sometimes the problem can go on for several hours or even days.

BTW, Tim Berners-Lee is British.

arnie: Thank you for that scholarly reply. Well at least my proposed neologism applies well to the process you describe

Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet, not Bill Gates.

Mr Berners-Lee invented the Web in 1991, which is not synonymous with the Internet. In fact, I began using the Internet in the late '80s. No one person invented the Internet, but if anybody was its father, that man was J. C. R. Licklider. Mr Gates was even in long pants when the Internet (or DARPAnet as it used to be called) was invented.

It is good to hear that Mr Licklider is an American, at least. Arnie, you're sounding more and more like Richard. [BTW, love that name "Licklider!"]

If it were to be Gates' Loop, I'd probably put an apostrophe in Gates, but I definitely wouldn't be prescriptive about that.

quote:

Earlier this morning accessing a sister site (which for reasons of protocol must remain anonymous),

I believe I've said this here before, Dale, but, once again...there is no protocol here about not mentioning other sites. Haven't you seen OEDILF and Snopes and the apostrophe site and AWAD mentioned here before? Obviously, if every post has a link to another board, that is a problem for any site. But you definitely could have mentioned the site.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

If it were to be Gates' Loop, I'd probably put an apostrophe in Gates, but I definitely wouldn't be prescriptive about that.

Inded - but not where you have put it - unless it were to be a loop belonging to several people called Gate.

Sorry, zmj. Careless of me. I often point out the same difference myself, so have no excuses!

k: Not so sure about that. Let's ask Arnie

quote:

Not so sure about that. Let's ask Arnie

Not sure about what? Are you talking about 'protocol'?

I'm not a founder of this site, so couldn't overrule what Kalleh says, even if I wanted to, which I don't. Whilst it is poor netiquette to continually mention (and especially link to) sites that might be seen as competitors, an occasional mention does no harm, IMHO.

Or...maybe he meant the question of the apostrophe?

If "Gates" is considered an adjective no apostrophe is required

However, it's often omitted in the modern ambience as in "Vons grocery" (nearly 18000 Ghits)

From the description I would imagine it is a loop belonging to, or created by, Gates, and thus it needs an apostrophe.

Rich: No I disagree. Any noun can be used as an adjective. Thus Barbie Doll, Mason-Dixon Line, Simpson neologism, Bush malaprop

From the description I would imagine it is a loop belonging to, or created by, Gates, and thus it needs an apostrophe.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of a noun being used in apposition to modify another one: e.g., Von Neumann architecture, Turing machine, Madras Presidency, university housing, Backus Naur form, Hollywood stop, boulevard stop, etc.

I've often thought that adjective rule was a bit hard to pinpoint. For example, in "New Year's Eve," isn't "Years" an adjective? I think it can get very intricate to think that way. When in doubt, I'd say yes to the apostrophe.

quote:

Any noun can be used as an adjective. Thus Barbie Doll, Mason-Dixon Line, Simpson neologism, Bush malaprop

Of course. But the phrase then means something slightly different.

A Turing Machine is a computer using Turing's principles; Turing's machine is his own personal machine.

It's a question of what exactly is meant by a "Gates (or Gates's) Loop".

There are valid arguments for and against using an apostrophe. If I were to use the phrase it would probably be Gates Loop.

If an apostrophe is used, it is also a matter of style how it is used. Many people would write it Gates's Loop, especially if they pronounced it "Gatesiz ...". Others would use Gates' Loop. What is certain is that it is not Gate's Loop, unless it were named after a Bill Gate.

A Turing Machine is a computer using Turing's principles; Turing's machine is his own personal machine.

The Smith Ranch is the ranch belonging to the Smith family; it's their property.

quote:

The Smith Ranch is the ranch belonging to the Smith family; it's their property.

As would also be the Smith's ranch.

The omission of the apostrophe in such possessives is common enough, especially in trade names: Barclays Bank; Marks and Spencer (but still Yates's wine bars and Fuller's Brewery).

Rich, very common indeed and I like your examples better than mine

Marks and Spencer was founded by Michael Marks.

quote:

Marks and Spencer was founded by Michael Marks.

True. And I have a feeling that his first stall, in Leeds, was called something like "Marks's Penny Bazaar" with the slogan "Don't ask the price, it's a penny".

Spencer didn't join the party until about ten years later.

"Marks's Penny Bazaar"

I doubt it. If the sign used an apostrophe at all, it would've been Marks' Penny Bazaar after the customary usage of the 19th century for names ending in -s.

But a possessvive none the less. In fact the Leeds site has this to say "...The famous Marks and Spencer department store started with Michael Marks' Penny Bazaar in Leeds Market; Waddington’s of Monopoly fame was founded in Leeds, and the largest clothing factory in Europe spread the Burtons name far and wide...."

They seem very unclear as to where the apostrophe should go and I would vouchsafe that the wishes of the founder would normally prevail.