Skip to main content
16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 10, 2014 at 19:25 vote accept ide
Oct 26, 2014 at 5:50 answer added Start Here timeline score: -1
Oct 26, 2014 at 4:41 answer added Blessed Geek timeline score: 1
Oct 26, 2014 at 2:26 answer added Drew timeline score: 2
Oct 25, 2014 at 23:48 answer added COTO timeline score: 8
Oct 25, 2014 at 23:32 answer added David timeline score: 0
Oct 25, 2014 at 23:06 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/526147837269008384
Oct 25, 2014 at 22:33 comment added JenSCDC How about "miss"?
Oct 25, 2014 at 22:02 comment added Papa Poule Sorry, but can't think of any (much less better) word when talking about that kind of signal. My "ignoring/disregarding" suggestion was based on thinking that you might be talking about other kinds of signals (of the romantic type, for example)! Maybe if you look for other ways to say "losing altitude"/"losing control"/etc. you might hit on something. Losing altitude, for example, means "going/went down" (in the non-"romantic" way!) and you might get to "going dark/went dark" from there, but I really think that "losing it" is going to be hard to beat.
Oct 25, 2014 at 21:38 comment added ide @PapaPoule, "losing" is what I'm going after. A signal has been detected, but when it goes out of range it is no longer detected. Wondering if there's a better word than losing.
Oct 25, 2014 at 21:15 comment added Tim Lymington Need more explanation really, but perhaps mislay?
Oct 25, 2014 at 21:10 comment added Papa Poule Since you're not failing to detect/overlooking/missing a detectable signal it seems that you're failing to maintain one that has already been detected, which, if "losing" isn't what you're after, might be a result of "ignoring" or "disregarding" it.
Oct 25, 2014 at 21:06 answer added user66974 timeline score: 2
Oct 25, 2014 at 20:32 comment added Joe Dark Elusive perhaps?
Oct 25, 2014 at 20:20 review First posts
Oct 25, 2014 at 22:28
Oct 25, 2014 at 20:16 history asked ide CC BY-SA 3.0