Unequivocal/Unequivocally - CSRNation2024-03-29T11:24:55Zhttp://csrnation.ning.com/forum/topics/unequivocalunequivocally-1?groupUrl=briefgroup&commentId=1736041%3AComment%3A1124549&groupId=1736041%3AGroup%3A1113748&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBrief Encounters says NIVL -…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2011-08-04:1736041:Comment:11772672011-08-04T23:33:01.999ZDana Welchhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/DanaWelch
<p>Brief Encounters says NIVL - unequivocal</p>
<p>NO*IVL - unequivocally</p>
<p>I like Keith's or Paul's better</p>
<p>Brief Encounters says NIVL - unequivocal</p>
<p>NO*IVL - unequivocally</p>
<p>I like Keith's or Paul's better</p> I write KWEU*F for equivocal,…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2011-08-01:1736041:Comment:11753542011-08-01T22:22:01.649ZJennifer L. Furiahttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/JenniferLFuria437
I write KWEU*F for equivocal, KWAOEU*F for unequivocal and KWAOEU*FL for unequivocally. Hope that works for you.
I write KWEU*F for equivocal, KWAOEU*F for unequivocal and KWAOEU*FL for unequivocally. Hope that works for you. I use exactly what LeAnne sug…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2011-04-26:1736041:Comment:11435442011-04-26T18:02:48.149ZKeith Rowan IIhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/KeithRowanII
<p>I use exactly what LeAnne suggested. </p>
<p>NIFL and N*IFL</p>
<p>KWIFL and KW*IFL for equivocal, ly</p>
<p>I use exactly what LeAnne suggested. </p>
<p>NIFL and N*IFL</p>
<p>KWIFL and KW*IFL for equivocal, ly</p> I write them as KWOIF and KWO…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2011-04-06:1736041:Comment:11375882011-04-06T13:38:18.837ZNaola "Sam" Vaughnhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/NaolaSamVaughn
<p>I write them as KWOIF and KWOIFL - because no one ever says equivocal or equivocally. If they do, I add the *. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I write them as KWOIF and KWOIFL - because no one ever says equivocal or equivocally. If they do, I add the *. </p>
<p> </p> These are all great!!! Thanks…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11246242010-01-10T21:29:15.279ZJaimiehttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/Jaimie
These are all great!!! Thanks, all!!!!
These are all great!!! Thanks, all!!!! Or how about adding -O when y…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11245912010-01-10T20:59:12.485ZNina Grimlerhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/NinaGrimler
Or how about adding -O when you need -ly. So you'll have N*IFL for unequivocal and NO*IFL for unequivocally?
Or how about adding -O when you need -ly. So you'll have N*IFL for unequivocal and NO*IFL for unequivocally? Actually I'd probably do NIFL…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11245492010-01-10T20:01:44.824ZLeAnne Lawhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/LeAnneLaw
Actually I'd probably do NIFL and N*IFL for the -ly.
Actually I'd probably do NIFL and N*IFL for the -ly. NIF and NIFL maybe?tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11245462010-01-10T20:00:29.612ZLeAnne Lawhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/LeAnneLaw
NIF and NIFL maybe?
NIF and NIFL maybe? You're welcome, Jaimie. I'm a…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11244392010-01-10T17:03:59.572ZJulie Guvernatorhttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/JulieGuvernator
You're welcome, Jaimie. I'm anxious to see if anyone has any one-strokers. I use NOIF for notice, so those iterations wouldn't work for me.
You're welcome, Jaimie. I'm anxious to see if anyone has any one-strokers. I use NOIF for notice, so those iterations wouldn't work for me. Well, that's certainly better…tag:csrnation.ning.com,2010-01-10:1736041:Comment:11244122010-01-10T16:05:02.242ZJaimiehttp://csrnation.ning.com/profile/Jaimie
Well, that's certainly better than what I was doing......which I won't even tell you what it is, but I think it was about six strokes!!! Thanks, Julie!!!
Well, that's certainly better than what I was doing......which I won't even tell you what it is, but I think it was about six strokes!!! Thanks, Julie!!!