ThePortForum.com

Posted: **22:41 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=66727#p66727]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:the exponential growth of this thread.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=66736#p66736]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:Were we to plot the frequency of postings on this thread on a graph, we would see a logarithmic curve described. To me, that is 'exponential growth'.

Does Daniel know that logarithms are the opposite of exponentials?

Maybe, as a public health measure, that question should be deemed rhetorical.

Posted: **22:48 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=66746#p66746]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:But were we to look at the number of posts within fixed periods of time, we would see that the total yielded in each successive period of time was greater than the immediately preceding period. The number of posts multiplies like topsy. The thread is out of control. It has diverted us all from more interesting and important things.
And allowed dark forces to rise to power.

Mere growth, even growth that seems rapid, is not necessarily exponential. To be exponential, growth must be proportional to the current level, at least approximately.

Which is not happening.

Posted: **22:50 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=66746#p66746]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:But were we to look at the number of posts within fixed periods of time, we would see that the total yielded in each successive period of time was greater than the immediately preceding period. The number of posts multiplies like topsy. The thread is out of control. It has diverted us all from more interesting and important things.
And allowed dark forces to rise to power.
Mere growth, even growth that seems rapid, is not necessarily exponential. To be exponential, growth must be proportional to the current level, at least approximately.

Which is not happening.

Oh go away.
*stomps off to cellar muttering oaths*

Posted: **22:54 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

When your students use technical words without understanding their meaning, what happens next?

Quite.

Posted: **22:56 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:When your students use technical words without understanding their meaning, what happens next?

Quite.

When my students start using technical words, whether they understand them or not, I will pass out.

Posted: **23:00 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

djewesbury wrote:Oh go away.
*stomps off to cellar muttering oaths*

I did warn you.

Posted: **23:01 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

I have sleuthed, sleuthed and sleuthed some more and can't find the answer.

Posted: **23:02 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

DRT wrote:I have sleuthed, sleuthed and sleuthed some more and can't find the answer.

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

Posted: **23:04 Tue 26 Nov 2013**

Posted: **00:40 Wed 27 Nov 2013**

Well that's really too bad. Somebody should start a thread where this sort of thing can be named and shamed.

Posted: **22:46 Sat 07 Dec 2013**

Photographed in Portree, Skye, on Wednesday 4^th December 2013.

Posted: **10:36 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, Cheri.

Posted: **10:42 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

SCP-DFF wrote:Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, Cheri.

I disagree. I think JDAW has been very diligent.

Posted: **10:49 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

DRT wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, Cheri.
I disagree. I think JDAW has been very diligent.

Taking a husband’s side against the wife: danger danger bear.

Posted: **10:52 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, Cheri.
I disagree. I think JDAW has been very diligent.
Taking a husband’s side against the wife: danger danger bear.

T'wasn't me. Someone must have stolen my login details.

Posted: **11:24 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

DRT wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:Gimme a break. That's ridiculous, Cheri.
I disagree. I think JDAW has been very diligent.

I tried to warn you, a swot and a teacher's pet.

Posted: **14:37 Sun 08 Dec 2013**

The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.

Posted: **11:21 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

SCP-DFF wrote:The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.

Compare and contrast:
• Fine ales from Isle of Skye
• Fine ales from ‘Isle of Skye’
What is the purpose of the quotation marks in the latter? I could have understood ‟Fine Isle-of-Skye ales”, as a compound adjective, but with the current arrangement of the words, the compounding is wrong.

Posted: **11:23 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

Not an apostrophe crime, but offensive to those who see these things.

The BBC, an an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25243274]State schools 'making gender bias worse'[/url], wrote:"We found that nearly half of the co-educational state-funded schools we looked are actually doing worse than average," explained Clare Thomson, curriculum and diversity manager at the Institute of Physics.

There are at least three things to notice, two of which amusingly clash with what the article is promoting.

Posted: **12:30 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:Not an apostrophe crime, but offensive to those who see these things.
The BBC, an an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25243274]State schools 'making gender bias worse'[/url], wrote:"We found that nearly half of the co-educational state-funded schools we looked are actually doing worse than average," explained Clare Thomson, curriculum and diversity manager at the Institute of Physics.
There are at least three things to notice, two of which amusingly clash with what the article is promoting.

That really is an appalling use of statistics. Ignoring the metric itself for a moment, and assuming that the selection of schools is either random or all-encompassing, the the fact that 49% of schools perform at a level below the average is neither surprising nor noteworthy, but simply a feature of statistical spread, however wide or narrow. They then go on to say that everyone doing worse than the average is doing something wrong - which may or may not be the case; there is no reason why the borderline between right vs wrong behaviour should be at the average point. Later on, they mention that "some schools are bucking the trend"; well yes, someone will be at the top of any measurement. I probably haven't covered all your concerns, but there is lots to dislike in this article which while it may have a valid underlying point, contains so many layers of dumbing-down and misuse of statistics, and has almost no information within it which would support the fundamental claim.

Posted: **12:46 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

The BBC, an an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25243274]State schools 'making gender bias worse'[/url], wrote:"We found that nearly half of the co-educational state-funded schools we looked are actually doing worse than average,"

PhilW has nicely explained this failure to understand how distributions work.

The BBC, an an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25243274]State schools 'making gender bias worse'[/url], wrote:explained Clare Thomson

So in an article about women not doing enough maths, in which the complainant doesn’t understand basic maths, is the complainant male or female? They want to show that, to paraphrase, women can do maths, but have produced a woman failing to do simple maths. Oh dear.

The BBC, an an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25243274]State schools 'making gender bias worse'[/url], wrote:curriculum and diversity manager at the Institute of Physics.

They want to show that, to paraphrase, women can do maths. They could have chosen to quote a female particle physicist, a female cosmologist, or perhaps one of the female members or former members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. A woman who can do, and does, something numerate. There are many. No, that would have required thinking. Instead the complaint about ‟reinforcing gender stereotypes” is coming from a female ‟diversity manager”. Oh dear.

Posted: **12:54 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

Has an email been sent already?

Posted: **12:55 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:Has an email been sent already?

Not by me. The modern dogma does not allow critical comment on such matters, irrespective or the wisdom or folly of the criticism.

Posted: **12:56 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Has an email been sent already?
Not by me. The modern dogma does not allow critical comment on such matters, irrespective or the wisdom or folly of the criticism.

Oh dear I'd better stop correcting these essays then.

Posted: **13:15 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:Oh dear I'd better stop correcting these essays then.

Academia should be about making plausible and interesting hypotheses, and testing them against the data. Except that, for Larry Summers, the hypothesis was contrary to the mandatory dogma, and he lost his job.

There is only one correct course.

If you deny the dogma, you lose your job. Therefore, if you look at the data and claim to believe the dogma, some people will think that the belief is driven by a desire not to lose the job. If you look at the data, there are two outcomes: lose job; or be thought a patsy. Hence it is important never to look at the data. Look away. Don’t read the books. Don’t read the papers. Look away. Then, if asked, one can say ‟I haven’t looked at the data.” That is the only job-preserving non-patsy thing course.

Posted: **13:21 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

I want to know more about the job-preserving non-patsy thing course!

Posted: **13:32 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:I was to know more about the job-preserving non-patsy thing course!

I'm sure we could run one of those for £1000/head

Posted: **13:33 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

PhilW wrote:
djewesbury wrote:I was to know more about the job-preserving non-patsy thing course!
I'm sure we could run one of those for £1000/head

Excellent. I'll get a PowerPoint together with some meaningless statistics.

Posted: **13:36 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.
Compare and contrast:
• Fine ales from Isle of Skye
• Fine ales from ‘Isle of Skye’
What is the purpose of the quotation marks in the latter? I could have understood ‟Fine Isle-of-Skye ales”, as a compound adjective, but with the current arrangement of the words, the compounding is wrong.

I thought you were complaining about "Macnabs Inn" (vs "Macnab's Inn")... I assumed that from the "Isle of Skye" being in quotes meant that is was only partially, or not-really, from the Isle of Skye, e.g. because the pub was just off it.

Posted: **13:40 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.
Compare and contrast:
• Fine ales from Isle of Skye
• Fine ales from ‘Isle of Skye’
What is the purpose of the quotation marks in the latter? I could have understood ‟Fine Isle-of-Skye ales”, as a compound adjective, but with the current arrangement of the words, the compounding is wrong.
I thought you were complaining about "Macnabs Inn" (vs "Macnab's Inn")... I assumed that from the "Isle of Skye" being in quotes meant that is was only partially, or not-really, from the Isle of Skye, e.g. because the pub was just off it.

Me too.

Posted: **16:56 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
SCP-DFF wrote:The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.
Compare and contrast:
• Fine ales from Isle of Skye
• Fine ales from ‘Isle of Skye’
What is the purpose of the quotation marks in the latter? I could have understood ‟Fine Isle-of-Skye ales”, as a compound adjective, but with the current arrangement of the words, the compounding is wrong.

Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.

Posted: **17:56 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

Glenn E. wrote:Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.

I accept that the problem was an Apostrophes crime, rather than the singular Apostrophe crime.

Posted: **18:04 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.
I accept that the problem was an Apostrophes crime, rather than the singular Apostrophe crime.

They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.

Posted: **18:10 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.

Oops. {Sackcloth and Ashes which we’re losing.}

Posted: **18:12 Mon 09 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.
Oops. {Sackcloth and Ashes which we’re losing.}

My sackcloth and ashes (donned yesterday) are beginning to become unhygienic. May I get dressed now?

Posted: **22:38 Tue 10 Dec 2013**

Posted: **23:22 Tue 10 Dec 2013**

I think registered trademarks are exempt from prosecution.

Posted: **23:28 Tue 10 Dec 2013**

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

Posted: **23:45 Tue 10 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

How? It's a plural. Simples no?
(It was the date I was commenting upon, not the brand name.)

Posted: **10:22 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

George Saintsbury:

Posted: **11:26 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

Posted: **11:43 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:Ugh

jdaw1 wrote:I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

We agree.

Posted: **14:41 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

This post doesn't exist. If it did, I wouldn't have written it. If I wrote it, I wasn't there. Honest.

Posted: **14:45 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.
George Saintsbury:

I think context has a part to play here. I would definitely expect no apostrophe to be used for "we made no port in the 1960s or 1970s", but would expect it in "there was little VA found in the 1960's ports" (meaning ports 'belonging' to the decade of the 1960s [not just 1960 itself]) which could, in the context of discussion of ports, be shortened to "there was little VA found in the 1960's" if intending to the ports of the 1960s, thereby referring to the wine rather than the decade (as per use in the quoted section). Borderline, but probably acceptable.

I think that sounds like a perfectly horrible justification. And I disagree too.
If the possessive were applied to a plural the apostrophe would go after the terminal s.

Posted: **15:07 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:I think that sounds like a perfectly horrible justification. And I disagree too.
If the possessive were applied to a plural the apostrophe would go after the terminal s.

Agreed, my last post was rubbish.

Posted: **17:12 Wed 11 Dec 2013**

Another example, from Wine And Food Quarterly, Spring 1964:

Posted: **13:51 Thu 12 Dec 2013**

AHB wrote:Will's were not revised, but one is likely to be in due course.

Posted: **18:27 Thu 12 Dec 2013**

djewesbury wrote:
AHB wrote:Will's were not revised, but one is likely to be in due course.

Quite right too. Shocking use of an apostrophe.

Unless it's a contraction of "Will and Testament" of course. Like 'cello, piano' or 'flu'. But it wouldn't have been now...would it?

Posted: **22:15 Tue 17 Dec 2013**

Not a complaint or an error, merely an observation which might be of interest.

The US Patent and Trademark Office, in [url=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html]s608[/url], wrote:Examiners should not object to the specification and/or claims in patent applications merely because applicants are using British English spellings (e.g., colour) rather than American English spellings. It is not necessary to replace the British English spellings with the equivalent American English spellings in the U.S. patent applications. Note that 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii) only requires the application to be in the English language. There is no additional requirement that the English must be American English.

The US Patent and Trademark Office, in [url=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e318327]1.52(b)(1)(ii)[/url], wrote:Be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation of the application and a translation of any corrections or amendments into the English language together with a statement that the translation is accurate.

Posted: **10:14 Wed 18 Dec 2013**

The Bank of England, in a news release entitled [url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2013/189.aspx]New Bank of England banknotes to be printed on polymer[/url], wrote:
Polymer banknotes are more durable. They last at least 2.5 times longer than paper banknotes so will take much longer to become ‟tatty”, improving the quality of banknotes in circulation.

It is possible that ‟tatty” is correctly quoted, if the Old Lady is quoting some authority on what happens to non-polymer notes. But unlikely.

ThePortForum.com

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes