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/
Self-evidently.PhilW wrote:Am missing the issue?
No.PhilW wrote:(capitalisation?)
I am delighted to learn that you did not think that I was already disturbed.djewesbury wrote:Oh no! Someone accidentally walked into the room marked 'Do not disturb the pedant'.
What is the crime?jdaw1 wrote:Self-evidently.PhilW wrote:Am missing the issue?
A masculine ordinal (“º”) is not a degree sign (“°”).PhilW wrote:What is the crime?
Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Interesting. I thought the crime was the use of "gave."jdaw1 wrote:A masculine ordinal (“º”) is not a degree sign (“°”).PhilW wrote:What is the crime?
Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Classic deflection technique. Have you read that book I sent you yet?djewesbury wrote:Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Yes that was a classic deflection. By you. Yes. I read it twice.DRT wrote:Classic deflection technique. Have you read that book I sent you yet?djewesbury wrote:Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
And you answer to JDAW's question is...?djewesbury wrote:Yes that was a classic deflection. By you. Yes. I read it twice.DRT wrote:Classic deflection technique. Have you read that book I sent you yet?djewesbury wrote:Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Yes, I am Don Francisco's sister.DRT wrote:And you answer to JDAW's question is...?djewesbury wrote:Yes that was a classic deflection. By you. Yes. I read it twice.DRT wrote:Classic deflection technique. Have you read that book I sent you yet?djewesbury wrote:Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Yes, we know that. Keep up. Back to your fabulous skill at identifying the differences in ordinals - please entertain the class with an answer that is actually an answer.djewesbury wrote:Yes, I am Don Francisco's sister.DRT wrote:And you answer to JDAW's question is...?djewesbury wrote:Yes that was a classic deflection. By you. Yes. I read it twice.DRT wrote:Classic deflection technique. Have you read that book I sent you yet?djewesbury wrote:Derek, why don't you answer for me? You clearly have the answer a your fingertips.DRT wrote:Daniel, please post your answer here to save us the trouble.jdaw1 wrote:Pray tell sir, by what signs would you know the difference?djewesbury wrote:I didn't see a masculine ordinal when I looked at the blog page. On my screen it's a degree sign.
Did you get that from Chapter 9 of the anthropology book - Why humans lash out at others when cornered?djewesbury wrote:And Julian needs a job. Or some occupational therapy at least.
Wikipedia, in article entitled [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_indicator]Ordinal indicator[/url], wrote:Both º and ª redirect here. º is not to be confused with the degree symbol (°) or ring (diacritic) (˚)
…
The masculine ordinal indicator U+00BA (º) is often confused with the degree sign U+00B0 (°), which looks very similar in many fonts and is available on Italian and Spanish keyboard layouts. The degree sign is a uniform circle and is never underlined, while the letter o may be oval or elliptical and have a varying line thickness. The letter o may also be underlined.
A small circle which looked like a degree sign, was actually very slightly smaller than expected. Barely an error, let alone a crime, I think.jdaw1 wrote:A masculine ordinal (“º”) is not a degree sign (“°”).PhilW wrote:What is the crime?
Even if in some fonts they are the same glyph, they are still different characters. Nonetheless:PhilW wrote:Barely an error, let alone a crime, I think.
jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps this is a bit harsh
Irrelevant: it is the character that is wrong, which therefore might be shown using the wrong glyph on some browser on some system at some time.djewesbury wrote:separate glyphs in the font used on the Malvedos blog for these characters?
I saw it immediately, and posted. You doubting Thomases then waste two dozen posts arguing.djewesbury wrote:Julian, has anybody ever suggested that you might have too much time on your hands?
Degree versus masculine ordinal: go on, say.djewesbury wrote:Obviously, if I were wrong, I would be very eager to say so.
People have said many things about me, including that. Some of the things people have said about me were true.djewesbury wrote:Julian, has anybody ever suggested that you might have too much time on your hands?
I was wrong.jdaw1 wrote:Degree versus masculine ordinal: go on, say.djewesbury wrote:Obviously, if I were wrong, I would be very eager to say so.
As revealed to St. John the Divine.PhilW wrote:Only recently? I thought the "moon turning to blood" was Old Testament (maybe New, I forget - it does sound more like something that would come from Revelations).
Recalling my lesson, I have just removed a noun “affect” from a footnote. Thank you.djewesbury wrote:No. You used a noun: affect. This is a word used by psychologists and refers to emotional states. Please reconsider.
This crime still has not been atoned for.djewesbury wrote:As revealed to St. John the Divine.PhilW wrote:Only recently? I thought the "moon turning to blood" was Old Testament (maybe New, I forget - it does sound more like something that would come from Revelations).
My pleasure.jdaw1 wrote:Recalling my lesson, I have just removed a noun “affect” from a footnote. Thank you.djewesbury wrote:No. You used a noun: affect. This is a word used by psychologists and refers to emotional states. Please reconsider.
I recognise that my dislike of propositional endings is much stronger than that of the authorities, so this might not be a crime. But it rankled.djewesbury wrote:This crime still has not been atoned for.
As a matter of interest, where else in the sentence would you propose to put this proposition?djewesbury wrote:Up with which we will not put?
Regardless. The original crime demands a judgement.
Substantial re-wording needed — yes, I know, hence the acknowledgement of my failing in this.djewesbury wrote:As a matter of interest, where else in the sentence would you propose to put this proposition?
Whatevs, babe. Now to the matter of the Book of Revelations.jdaw1 wrote:Substantial re-wording needed — yes, I know, hence the acknowledgement of my failing in this.djewesbury wrote:As a matter of interest, where else in the sentence would you propose to put this proposition?
I thought it was plural, but I see it is not; my error.djewesbury wrote:Now to the matter of the Book of Revelations.
No crime; merely for the record.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=95626#p95626]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=95361#p95361]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:I guessed at a Taylor's Q de TF 88 which I offer for members' amusement.Perfection! Even the use of ‘which’ rather than ‘that’ is commended.In the same post Doggett wrote:Did I get my apostrophe right there Julian?
It is pleasing to see that the youth of today know how to use apostrophes.Today, my Facebook feed wrote:
- Screen Shot 2015-10-10 at 00.40.56.png (164.56 KiB) Viewed 17386 times
I changed my mind and thought this deserved citation. I am quite unshakeable on this one; no matter what arguments might be presented I am absolutely certain that any editor or proof reader will tell you this is wrong. Phrases consisting of adjectives modified by attributive adverbs ending in '-ly' should not be hyphenated.jdaw1 wrote:‘politically-correct’
Manfully worn. Well done. Now chastise the politically correct correctly.jdaw1 wrote:I vaguely recall that being grammatically correct. Oops.
[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=96456#p96456]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Their Colheita's look very reasonably priced
jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=96456#p96456]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Their Colheita's look very reasonably priced
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10131]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:... iff permission is granted, will then do as you say.
In my sentence does “if and only if” fit as an expansion of “iff”? (Clue: yes.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iff wrote:In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements.
It seems that this was not my first offence of this crime.djewesbury wrote:Phrases consisting of adjectives modified by attributive adverbs ending in '-ly' should not be hyphenated.
Failing sudden pleas for clemency, the hyphen will die.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=74984#p74984]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:we have jointly composed this standard advice, that covers the most frequently-seen situations.
The ellipsis bothers me. I recognise that others might be bothered by other things, not necessarily the straight single quotation marks (“'”), but the ellipsis is wrong.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=96875#p96875]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:The Niepoort 57 colheita can confirm it's attendance on Tuesday....
