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/
DRT wrote: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.
+1, and I would likely put the player colour in italics.DRT wrote:Yes, yes and the latter.
The traditional way of expressing cricket scores in England is for the runs to come first and the wickets to come second, ie 48-5. I am aware that this is not the case in the antipodes, it is similar to the division that exists between Europe and America as to which order to put the day/month/year (obvious when put like that, but it pays to be polite to powerful allies, even if they are wrong).djewesbury wrote:5-48.
Guilty as charged. The accused is sentenced to three days breaking rocks and is charged with contempt of court and badgering the witness.LGTrotter wrote:I wish to draw the following to the standards committee.The traditional way of expressing cricket scores in England is for the runs to come first and the wickets to come second, ie 48-5.djewesbury wrote:5-48.
At last. A judge with some common sense.jdaw1 wrote:Not guilty. Move on.
Is a port forum the right place to find sense that is common? Move on.djewesbury wrote:some common sense.
If this were a poll I would vote no as this would act as a deterrent to ridiculous and/or dubious allegations that eventually lead to entertaining humiliation of the plaintiff. Should we have a poll?djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time. Could costs be awarded against the plaintiff in cases where the court's ruling is in favour of the defendant? Costs should be reasonably high, viz. a bottle of unfiltered LBV or pre-2000 Crusted to be consumed at a future tasting. No ruling for costs to be made against convicted defendants.
That risks causing an undesired change in the behaviour of accusers. Rather than accusing, plainly and honestly, notices will come with wiffle about how “this might be acceptable, but it seemed to be a borderline case of possible interest to readers”.djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time. Could costs be awarded against the plaintiff in cases where the court's ruling is in favour of the defendant? Costs should be reasonably high, viz. a bottle of unfiltered LBV or pre-2000 Crusted to be consumed at a future tasting. No ruling for costs to be made against convicted defendants.
Ignore them. Be bigger than that.djewesbury wrote:Too much of the court's time is currently being taken up with vexatious or malicious accusations. These typically are motivated by revenge or by a desire to deflect from immediately prior accusations. Too often, accusations are unsubstantiated with any evidence of general or accepted usage. I do not wish to stifle the court and to silence legitimate complaint and debate. I think however that we need some sort of corrective to the worst excesses of the persistent accusers.
I beg the court to send him down for contempt, or at the very least huffiness.djewesbury wrote:This is a sham of a court. A succession of monkey trials.
You should be watching Film Four, the film of Porridge is on. I often like to think of you as a modern-day Fletcher. He was a bad loser in court too.DRT wrote:I beg the court to send him down for contempt, or at the very least huffiness.djewesbury wrote:This is a sham of a court. A succession of monkey trials.
djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time.
DRT wrote:I would vote no as this would act as a deterrent to ridiculous and/or dubious allegations that eventually lead to entertaining humiliation of the plaintiff.
jdaw1 wrote:That risks causing an undesired change in the behaviour of accusers.
djewesbury wrote:Too much of the court's time is currently being taken up with vexatious or malicious accusations. These typically are motivated by revenge or by a desire to deflect from immediately prior accusations. Too often, accusations are unsubstantiated with any evidence of general or accepted usage. I do not wish to stifle the court and to silence legitimate complaint and debate. I think however that we need some sort of corrective to the worst excesses of the persistent accusers.
jdaw1 wrote:Ignore them. Be bigger than that.
...and apparently I'm the bad loserdjewesbury wrote:This is a sham of a court. A succession of monkey trials.
Thank you Mr Baraclough.djewesbury wrote:Carry on Fletcher.
Sir, Barraclough has two Rs.DRT wrote:Thank you Mr Baraclough.djewesbury wrote:Carry on Fletcher.
I think you will find it has two rs.djewesbury wrote:Sir, Barraclough has two Rs.DRT wrote:Thank you Mr Baraclough.djewesbury wrote:Carry on Fletcher.
I'm just killing time until the Moon comes up. Not sure what your excuse is.djewesbury wrote:This is fun, isn't it.
Indeed, bringing us back on topic, it is not unusual to use an apostrophe for the plural of a lower-case letter: viz, two r’s.DRT wrote:I think you will find it has two rs.
Thank you for that helpful information. Does the same apply to upper case?jdaw1 wrote:Indeed, bringing us back on topic, it is not unusual to use an apostrophe for the plural of a lower-case letter: viz, two r’s.DRT wrote:I think you will find it has two rs.
I believe both, but it is less important: “Rs” can be clear; “rs” less so.DRT wrote:Thank you for that helpful information. Does the same apply to upper case?jdaw1 wrote:Indeed, bringing us back on topic, it is not unusual to use an apostrophe for the plural of a lower-case letter: viz, two r’s.DRT wrote:I think you will find it has two rs.
The Bank of England, in the ‘Executive summary and key points’ within [url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fmi/annualreport2015.pdf]The Bank of England’s supervision of financial market infrastructures — Annual Report[/url], wrote:UK CCPs have introduced rules to comprehensively allocate losses from their investment of participants’ cash collateral.
Wiki seems to suggest that objections to their use were invented in the 19th century and are now largely considered irrelevant nonsense. I agree.jdaw1 wrote:Do we have a team opinion about split infinitives?
*sigh*DRT wrote:Wiki seems to suggest that objections to their use were invented in the 19th century and are now largely considered irrelevant nonsense. I agree.jdaw1 wrote:Do we have a team opinion about split infinitives?
Yes; one of us said it more elegantly, it's true. But the essential thrust was conveyed, and with admirable concision, in your missive.DRT wrote:Our posts crossed, and we were saying the same thing.
DRT wrote:Gould Campbell & Co is a shipping company, not a wine producer, so by definition all of their wine (not grapes) are bought in
Am not sure that I rarely if ever use one, but they do not worry me.jdaw1 wrote:Do we have a team opinion about split infinitives?The Bank of England, in the ‘Executive summary and key points’ within [url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fmi/annualreport2015.pdf]The Bank of England’s supervision of financial market infrastructures — Annual Report[/url], wrote:UK CCPs have introduced rules to comprehensively allocate losses from their investment of participants’ cash collateral.
Contempt of court. Sackcloth with extra sharp scratchy bits for you.DRT wrote:Stop wasting the court's time.
The BBC, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-31941672]here[/url] wrote:According to Prime Minister Essid, 19 people were killed, although some of the country's involved have different totals:
I know what Alex's defence will be. "I did it on purpose.AHB wrote:Like when you take a bite out of a Cadbury Crème Egg.
What are you going on about? Are you sure you're feeling all right? Temperature? Hot flushes? Other symptoms of delusion or hysteria?djewesbury wrote:I know what Alex's defence will be. "I did it on purpose.AHB wrote:Like when you take a bite out of a Cadbury Crème Egg.
Well the court is not interested in motive, only in evidence of infraction. Well, the evidence is there in his own words, and I bring to the court also this exhibit.
I am pressing for a guilty charge.
Do you not have your eggs crèmed for you by Cadbury?djewesbury wrote:Crème Egg??
At last, a conviction. Now we can have lunch.AHB wrote:Do you not have your eggs crèmed for you by Cadbury?djewesbury wrote:Crème Egg??
More seriously, I appear to be guilty as charged. The iPhone decided to add the grave accent and I didn't spot the auto-correction.
But... but... Siri knows all! Clearly, therefore, it must be Daniel who is wrong.AHB wrote:Do you not have your eggs crèmed for you by Cadbury?djewesbury wrote:Crème Egg??
More seriously, I appear to be guilty as charged. The iPhone decided to add the grave accent and I didn't spot the auto-correction.
