A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
I don't think so. Once you have the data it has been released and made public, regardless of whether you paid for it. Private subscription is a red herring.jdaw1 wrote:If data is released only to those paying a subscription, could that be a private publication?
That's why I have my head under my arm. Whoooooooooo!LGTrotter wrote:Hang on, wasn't Daniel deposed in a bloody coup yesterday? Now here he is expanding his remit into possible examples of tautology. Has the world gone mad?
What is the meaning of publishing, then, as opposed to circulating a memo or collating a spreadsheet to email to everyone? I have not just 'published' my module guides for the courses I'm teaching this semester; but the university has published its prospectus. An internal report is not 'published'.PhilW wrote:I'm sure some data is only published internally, as opposed to publicly, even if accessible via freedom of information requests or similar; other data might be published internally, or to a known list of approved recipients but not be available more widely for security reasons.
{sackcloth} for the misspelling.
Dreadful indeed.DRT wrote:I am all Appled-up but I think JDAW has one of those old fashioned Windows thingies and AHB has one of those dreadful Blackcurrents.
The Financial Times, in an article entitled [url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/06cc026e-7566-11e4-a1a9-00144feabdc0.html]Welcome to the web’s dark side[/url], wrote:Trolls and hackers are some of the most interesting people Mr Bartlett meets. Trolling, trying intentionally to upset people by posting inflammatory comments online, can be sophisticated and politically motivated, a way of pushing people’s boundaries to unlock ideas. One troll, Zack, explains how he joins an online forum, deliberately makes basic grammatical and spelling mistakes, waits for someone to criticise his writing and then locks them into a conversation about politics.
Sent upstairs for a ruling from the third umpire.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9569]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:One bottle is better than none. But a miserable strike rate for two large branches of Tesco's (putting my neck on the line with that take on the plural possessive form).
DRT wrote:I have never had one that wasn't tainted and will never buy one. It's poor reputation is thoroughly deserved in my view.CaliforniaBrad wrote:im surprised no one has mentioned yet is the '83 Cockburn
Surely there is no need for an apostrophe at all. Is Tesco being possessive? I thought it was just more than one branch of Tesco?DRT wrote:Sent upstairs for a ruling from the third umpire.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9569]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:One bottle is better than none. But a miserable strike rate for two large branches of Tesco's (putting my neck on the line with that take on the plural possessive form).
Case for the prosecution: Unlike their rivals "Sainsbury's", Tesco do not use a possessive in any of their branding as demonstrated in the case of "Tesco Finest" v "Sainsbury's Taste the Difference". "Two large branches of Tesco" would be a more accurate description, the s on branches adequately demonstrating the plurality of the phrase.
What does the defendant have to say for himself?
Correct.LGTrotter wrote:Surely there is no need for an apostrophe at all. Is Tesco being possessive? I thought it was just more than one branch of Tesco?
I was simply following Daniel's new style of inserting apostrophes randomly where they serve no useful purpose. I think I made my point.djewesbury wrote:Meanwhile, as you sit here wasting the court's time, the very worst recidivists are out and about, terrorising the forum.DRT wrote:I have never had one that wasn't tainted and will never buy one. It's poor reputation is thoroughly deserved in my view.CaliforniaBrad wrote:im surprised no one has mentioned yet is the '83 Cockburn
You can give me it tomorrow once you've finished wearing it.djewesbury wrote:Nice try Derek. Now don your sackcloth.
A similar case was brought before this court some time back, here.djewesbury wrote:Turnbull, where you paying attention when we covered this in Third Form? Or were you making catapults as usual?
I refer Your Honour to a ruling made several thousand pages ago.
(Summary: the possessive is not part of the name, any more than it is in a form such as the grocer's. The implied part of speech here is the noun 'shop'.)
djewesbury wrote:where you paying attention
Et tu?LGTrotter wrote:djewesbury wrote:where you paying attention
For the apostrophe, with several other punctuation and spelling crimes also taken into account.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7654&start=1650#p89171]here[/url] LGTrotter wrote:With England on it's current run of form and with Scotland determined to lose by any means, fair or foul, it could be an interesting game. The two titans of disaster going head to head. I have seen Boycott's response, but not yet's Boycott, aka Mr Jwewsbury's. Still traing up his gran with a stick of rhubarb to take over the captaincy I suppose.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=40510#p40510]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.
n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=40510#p40510]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.
Fewer?PhilW wrote:n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=40510#p40510]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.
Welcome to the glass house.djewesbury wrote:No wonder you can't use the correct word, there isn't a mathematical symbol for it.
Signed,
The Campaign for English Words Written in Full and Not Abbreviated or Replaced with Mathematical Symbols.
You are campaigning for words to be written in full. Surely "isn't" should be "is not"?djewesbury wrote:That's another rubbish argument from the math-bots. Contractions are words; not abbreviations. Language is not an if-and-not operation, but that's a pretty clear one.
Process that, Metal Mickey.
+1djewesbury wrote:why don't we just make a rule that you lot stop writing <= and that kind of thing when you're meant to be criticising one another's English?
I think it's fewer than that.djewesbury wrote:Thanks Derek. By doubling our numbers I feel you've made our case at least ½ as strong.
Would you really say "preferably fewer" (than 80)? I would have thought "preferably less" (than 80) was more natural, and am surprised if that is deemed incorrect.flash_uk wrote:Fewer?PhilW wrote:n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=40510#p40510]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.
None, and I would have expected both to be "less". Ah well, time to buy more lubricant.djewesbury wrote:What grammatical difference is there between '80 characters or fewer' and '5 items or fewer'?
Indeed, fewer.flash_uk wrote:Fewer?
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=89320#p89320]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:Going on past form, I expect to disagree with everything everyone says, but hopefully that will enable me to have a better idea of mine own.
jdaw1, in a document dated January 1992, wrote:his opponents counter
jdaw1, in a document dated January 1992, wrote:his opponents position
A glimpse at a mis-punctuated youth.jdaw1, in a document dated January 1992, wrote:his opponents counter
I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.djewesbury wrote:Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.
I can't while you're sitting there.DRT wrote:I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.djewesbury wrote:Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.
You can sit on my kneedjewesbury wrote:I can't while you're sitting there.DRT wrote:I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.djewesbury wrote:Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.
