ThePortForum.com

AW77 wrote:

PopulusTremula wrote: 1. It is in the nature of those who are not young to worry about and to decry the abilities of those who are. This has gone on for millennia.

+1
And I think we all should have more faith in the younger generation. Remember, they will pay our pension. So we should have a little faith in them.

djewesbury wrote:Well the Oxford clue has me completely flummoxed. So you'd better open the box.

PopulusTremula wrote:2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole. Whilst the sample can be analyzed the conclusions are most likely applicable only to the sample itself (or to a wider group of individuals who share the attributes of those in the sample).

djewesbury wrote:Oh that. Yeah well I presumed that was obvious. I thought that the answer would be much further across the Divide and into the Other Continent.
Now, would you like a short treatise on the history of the cows coming home in the ancient literature of Britain and Ireland?

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Well the Oxford clue has me completely flummoxed. So you'd better open the box.

PopulusTremula wrote:2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole. Whilst the sample can be analyzed the conclusions are most likely applicable only to the sample itself (or to a wider group of individuals who share the attributes of those in the sample).

Heavens above. Today’s academics: they can quote Greek literature until the cows come home, but still can’t cross Snow’s divide.

Yes, the sample is small. All samples are smaller than the population. Hence ‘sample’. And sample “conclusions are” definitely “applicable” “to the sample itself”. Sure, by definition. But they are also applicable — wait for it — “to a wider group of individuals who share the attributes of those in the sample”. Behold a tautology!

As they say in the pension industry, “Vita longa, ars brevis”.

djewesbury wrote:

AW77 wrote:Daniel, don't be so grumpy. It's no good to get worked up over something you cannot change anyway.

We can all change everything André, but in order to do so we have to be able to see it clearly in the first place. :triumphant optimist:

Glenn E. wrote:There's an Oxford comma missing.

DRT wrote:Thank you to all who have commented on my question in the past 24 hours. Very (un)helpful.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:There's an Oxford comma missing.

For my taste an Oxford comma is optional. Use if required by the rhythm of the sentence, or pace djewesbury, for disambiguation. Or if liked by the author.

djewesbury wrote:Quite. So only use it when it really is necessary and really does the job.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Quite. So only use it when it really is necessary and really does the job.

Even then, don't use it. It looks wrong.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Thank you to all who have commented on my question in the past 24 hours. Very (un)helpful.

It looked like a trap to me.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Quite. So only use it when it really is necessary and really does the job.

Even then, don't use it. It looks wrong.

Absolutely correct. It looks wrong when you don't use it.

jdaw1 wrote: Today’s academics: they can quote Greek literature until the cows come home, but still can’t cross Snow’s divide.

Our very own Professor Brian Cox wrote:Lucklily these things keep there value

djewesbury wrote:

Our very own Professor Brian Cox wrote:Lucklily these things keep there value

jdaw1 wrote:British English: ‘amenable to being fiddled’ = fiddlable or fiddleable?

djewesbury wrote:Without the 'e'.

djewesbury wrote:Why do I have to cite my sources when Phil didn't, sir?

jdaw1 wrote:British English: ‘amenable to being fiddled’ = fiddlable or fiddleable?

djewesbury wrote:If one of my students used the word, I would point out that however you spell it, it is extremely ugly and not, according to the OED, a recognised word.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:If one of my students used the word, I would point out that however you spell it, it is extremely ugly and not, according to the OED, a recognised word.

Hmm: please suggest alternatives.

PhilW wrote: Daniel, you're clearly veering toward the American;

Andy Velebil wrote:http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 162#p88162

A travesty has beset our revered Julian, or should I say Juiian

PhilW wrote:I'd like to report my mate Jewesbury for the crime of appearing to be American twice in one week. I could refer to his as t'Jewesbury in my best northern accent if it would help acceptance in this thread.

djewesbury wrote:

PhilW wrote:I'd like to report my mate Jewesbury for the crime of appearing to be American twice in one week. I could refer to his as t'Jewesbury in my best northern accent if it would help acceptance in this thread.

Let me see, how to mount my defence.
Your honours, lords on the bench, I think he's lost it.
(And surely "t'Jewesbury" is a crime against Yorkshire, as it's spoke, like?)

LGTrotter wrote:the yoke of this new Robespierre. Prepare the tumbrels!

PhilW wrote:I would have expected (but do not know) the IVDP to know and maintain such information; whether they publish it publically I have no idea, but might be worth a trawl through their website, or an enquiry.