ThePortForum.com

Posted: **14:45 Wed 15 Apr 2009**

In general, absolutely correct not to challenge the officer. ‟Yes officer!”

Yeah, and don't you two forget that

Posted: **17:15 Wed 15 Apr 2009**

Andy speaks the truth!

In the US, at least, anything you say to a police officer can be used against you in court. The reverse, unfortunately, is not true - NOTHING that you say to the police officer can be used to HELP you.

So answer the officer's relevant* questions politely, but say nothing else.

* "Do you know how fast you were driving?" is not relevant at the time of the traffic stop. It's a trap. Simply look at the officer and blink innocently like you didn't understand the question.

Posted: **17:57 Wed 15 Apr 2009**

Glenn E. wrote:* "Do you know how fast you were driving?" is not relevant at the time of the traffic stop. It's a trap. Simply look at the officer and blink innocently like you didn't understand the question.

‟Officer, I am sure that I was driving in a manner that was safe and courteous to other road users.”

Lying to an officer rarely makes friends. Saying something allows the officer to hear an English accent might be worth a go.

Posted: **18:00 Wed 15 Apr 2009**

Glenn E. wrote:Andy speaks the truth!

In the US, at least, anything you say to a police officer can be used against you in court. The reverse, unfortunately, is not true - NOTHING that you say to the police officer can be used to HELP you.

So answer the officer's relevant* questions politely, but say nothing else.

* "Do you know how fast you were driving?" is not relevant at the time of the traffic stop. It's a trap. Simply look at the officer and blink innocently like you didn't understand the question.

I always say "Why was I pulled over? I thought I was going the speed limit"

Posted: **18:21 Wed 15 Apr 2009**

g-man wrote:I always say "Why was I pulled over? I thought I was going the speed limit"

In one local municipality here in Washington that could get you slapped with "Inattention to Driving" which carries a $250 fine. What? You admitted that you didn't know you were speeding, ergo you weren't paying attention.

Seriously. Anything you say can be used against you if presented (im)properly. So don't say anything that you aren't required to say. In fact, one traffic attorney out here has the following printed on the back of her business cards for her clients to have handy just in case:

To Law Enforcement:
1. I have provided you with my driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance;
2. I will not be answering any questions or making any statements;
3. I will not be volunteering to perform field sobriety tests, or blowing in a PBT; but I will blow in a BAC machine at the station if you have probable cause to arrest me.
4. If I am not under arrest, I wish to leave, otherwise I wish to speak to my lawyer immediately.

Posted: **19:33 Tue 21 Apr 2009**

Not an apostrophe crime, but to avoid hijacking Roy’s hijack, posted here.

[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25011#p25011]Here[/url] Roy Hersh wrote:Tom also wrote:
It's easy to presume that Sogrape are just too greedy, and would rather forego the business than compete with the Symingtons and TFP; but given that they sell a lot of Ruby to France, which is the most meagre market from a profit standpoint, that doesn't stack up..
Sogrape are (... is ... calling JDW for judgement ) too greedy you say?

Guessing that ‟JDW” is JDAW is me, I think either is acceptable. Sogrape itself, a singular entity; or the management of Sogrape, being a plurality of people.

Posted: **20:38 Tue 21 Apr 2009**

Sogrape are too greedy ... just sounds wrong. I like "is" better in that sentence. YMMV.

Thank you for your esteemed opinion Mr. Wiseman!

Posted: **16:30 Mon 27 Apr 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25323#p25323]Here[/url] Andy V wrote:Whats the next accent you've got line up?

I was thinking that it’s almost time for a G-breve: Äž, the lowercase version of which is found in the name of the Turkish prime minister. (And that’s ignoring Andy’s wrong tense.)

Posted: **22:45 Mon 27 Apr 2009**

Sogrape is an entity, the management is an entity, 'Sogrape is too greedy' is correct (from a grammatical point of view, I have no idea about the reality).

This can be confirmed by considering a group structure, I go back a long way so I will take The Skids. If you say 'The Skids are Scottish', this is acceptable because the plural implies that each member is an individual 'Skid', but 'The Skids is a Scottish band' is also acceptable because we are dealing with an entity of the band. 'Ultravox is an electronic band' is correct as we are dealing with an entity whilst 'Ultravox are electronic' is just wrong, in so many ways.

The link, for those that are interested, is that Midge Ure is also Scottish and produced a Skids track. I know you don't care but humour me.

Posted: **05:32 Tue 28 Apr 2009**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25323#p25323]Here[/url] Andy V wrote:Whats the next accent you've got line up?
I was thinking that it’s almost time for a G-breve: Äž, the lowercase version of which is found in the name of the Turkish prime minister. (And that’s ignoring Andy’s wrong tense.)

That's what happens when I post sober...must have more Port before typing

Posted: **13:11 Tue 28 Apr 2009**

jdaw1 wrote:I was thinking that it’s almost time for a G-breve: Äž...

Does this mean that you will start up a new thread called "Äž - G-breve crimes"? I don't anticipate that it will grow very quickly.

Posted: **14:15 Tue 28 Apr 2009**

It might grow with a discussion about how quickly it will grow.

Hence my use of this thread for general pedantic errors of a grammatical or typographic nature, especially apostrophe crimes.

Posted: **22:09 Fri 12 Jun 2009**

Annoyance. The US Immigration people, currently in possession of things relating to my Green Card, have written requesting further ‟evidence of a good faith marriage”. Is that really what they want? Proof that we are raising our children in a religious manner, and that our marriage is in other ways ‟good”? Church every Sunday, prayers every night. No hard liquor. How strange. One might have expected, in a less ecclesiastical country, ‟evidence of a good-faith marriage”. Which would be completely different.

I have not drawn the attention of the INS to this error.

Posted: **09:58 Sat 13 Jun 2009**

Would two children be sufficent evidence?! Do they require you to send them the evidence or just evidence of it?!

Posted: **11:13 Sat 13 Jun 2009**

jdaw1 wrote:I have not drawn the attention of the INS to this error.

One could suggest that this, in itself, is an act of good-faith

Posted: **11:52 Sat 13 Jun 2009**

AHB wrote:an act of good-faith

Well, it might have been an act of good faith (or a good-faith act), but it wasn’t. Rather, it suggests that I fear vindictiveness.

Posted: **20:01 Sat 13 Jun 2009**

jdaw1 wrote:Annoyance. The US Immigration people, currently in possession of things relating to my Green Card, have written requesting further ‟evidence of a good faith marriage”. Is that really what they want? Proof that we are raising our children in a religious manner, and that our marriage is in other ways ‟good”? Church every Sunday, prayers every night. No hard liquor. How strange. One might have expected, in a less ecclesiastical country, ‟evidence of a good-faith marriage”. Which would be completely different.

I have not drawn the attention of the INS to this error.

Perhaps it is a symptom of an overly-literal translation of the phrase bona fide?

Posted: **16:35 Wed 12 Aug 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=28334#p28334]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:There are Wisemans in many towns - not particularly that one. So no.

I haven’t yet mastered typing an em-dash (‟ ”) on an iPhone.

Posted: **12:25 Thu 13 Aug 2009**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=28334#p28334]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:There are Wisemans in many towns - not particularly that one. So no.
I haven’t yet mastered typing an em-dash (‟ ”) on an iPhone.

You must be desolated.

Posted: **08:44 Sat 29 Aug 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=28727#p28727]Here[/url] DRT wrote:OK - AHBs guess is too far in the past.

Posted: **23:06 Sat 19 Sep 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=29562#p29562]Here[/url] Andy V wrote:The Malvedos blog is wonderful! I've posted many times about it on . The Symington's, Miles Edlmann, Henry Shotton, and the rest of the Symington staff are doing a great job of updating it several times a day. Talk about get current up to date information from the front lines.

Many kudo's go to the Symington's for keeping it focused for us uber Port geeks to enjoy

There are at least three apostrophe crimes in this even allowing for the etymologically dodgy new-fangled singular ‟kudo”.

Posted: **15:28 Mon 21 Sep 2009**

Someone has to keep you on your toes

Posted: **16:34 Fri 16 Oct 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=30057#p30057]Here[/url] DRT wrote:However, the 1970 was quite simply "not ready" and showed much younger in comparison to it's not much older siblings.

Posted: **13:17 Fri 06 Nov 2009**

Although not an apostrophe crime, I feel disappointed that jdaw1 hasn't picked up on the three references to "daylight savings time" in this thread.

Posted: **13:27 Fri 06 Nov 2009**

JacobH wrote:Although not an apostrophe crime, I feel disappointed that jdaw1 hasn't picked up on the three references to "daylight savings time" in this thread.

Not an apostrophe crime and not grammatically incorrect as savings can be made. Where you are going to put your daylight savings and whether they will accrue interest is another matter.

Posted: **13:34 Fri 06 Nov 2009**

KillerB wrote:Not an apostrophe crime and not grammatically incorrect as savings can be made. Where you are going to put your daylight savings and whether they will accrue interest is another matter.

Fair point. Where you do put yours?

Posted: **19:01 Mon 23 Nov 2009**

AHB wrote:The supermarket was Sainsbury, but only the one in Camberley as far as I could tell, and it was about 3-4 years ago - just after Christmas in their wine clearance sale. I also picked up a half bottle of Y'quem '01 for £50 from the same supermarket.

Taken from here.

The crime is that AHB is talking about one of the great wines of the World - Chateau d'Yquem. Oh the shame.

Posted: **09:39 Wed 02 Dec 2009**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=26176#p26176]Here[/url] AHB wrote:The Bell, Wenden's Ambo, CB11 4JY

Posted: **14:46 Thu 07 Jan 2010**

Parliament House Hotel wrote:In a city renowned for it's heritage, the Parliament House Hotel has it's own extensive history.

Posted: **16:24 Tue 12 Jan 2010**

Companies House wrote:Articles of Association.

This gives details of the company’s internal management affairs, the running of the company and it’s liability..

Posted: **13:16 Tue 23 Mar 2010**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=34163#p34163]Here[/url] AHB wrote:Very impressive and still years from it's peak. 94/199.

Cool scoring system.

Posted: **23:21 Fri 26 Mar 2010**

jdaw1 is not alone.

Bob the Angry Flower

Posted: **11:31 Tue 30 Mar 2010**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=34163#p34163]Here[/url] AHB wrote:Very impressive and still years from it's peak. 94/199.
Cool scoring system.

A moderately irritating feature of the iPhone's otherwise excellent spell check on entry capabilities is that it insists on adding an apostrophe between it and s regardless of the context. I can only apologise for having missed this one (and for the fat fingers hitting the 9 instead of the 0).

Posted: **18:55 Thu 22 Jul 2010**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=36773#p36773]Here[/url] AHB wrote:otherwise it's main value would be as an unusual curiosity

Presumably an iPhone problem the post was signed ‟Alwx”.

Posted: **22:19 Sun 25 Jul 2010**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=36452#p36452]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:(Mod's, may be best to split this into it's own topic)

Posted: **22:21 Sun 25 Jul 2010**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=36777#p36777]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Tawny's work the best for this

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=36777#p36777]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:also done it with younger VP's as well

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=36777#p36777]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:old VP's though.

Posted: **16:12 Fri 30 Jul 2010**

Some advice and guidance is required to avoid a potential apostrophe crime. How should "shall not" be contracted?

Posted: **16:48 Fri 30 Jul 2010**

1. Why contract? Is there a good reason? If not, don’t.
2. Anyway, shan’t (ignore Wikipedia’s vocabulary error), as in I shan’t be drinking 1975s.

Posted: **22:44 Fri 30 Jul 2010**

jdaw1 wrote:1. Why contract? Is there a good reason? If not, don’t.
2. Anyway, shan’t (ignore Wikipedia’s vocabulary error), as in I shan’t be drinking 1975s.

1) Reporting speech, the word used was the contraction of shall not.
2) The question arose as PG Wodehouse uses sha'n't - and I can see why; but I presume from your reply that sha'n't is now considered archaic.

Posted: **15:26 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38263#p38263]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Of the very old colheita's and tawny's I've had

Posted: **16:45 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38263#p38263]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Of the very old colheita's and tawny's I've had

I thought there was a rule that members who's first language isn't English would not be prosecuted for apostrophe crimes?

Posted: **16:51 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

In the previous post, which was the wrong place to do it, DRT wrote:I thought there was a rule that members who's first language isn't English

Posted: **17:50 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

DRT wrote:I thought there was a rule that members who's first language isn't English would not be prosecuted for apostrophe crimes?

What he said I think

Posted: **22:31 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38303#p38303]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Graham's recently claimed to have Colheita's as far back as the mid to late 1800s

Posted: **22:37 Wed 27 Oct 2010**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38303#p38303]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Graham's recently claimed to have Colheita's as far back as the mid to late 1800s

Posted: **14:20 Thu 28 Oct 2010**

Can we include grammer issues here too?

by jdaw1
Roy, you have form for wanting to look and smell at the just the time that busy folk are fetching and carrying and putting out and generally busy being busy.

Posted: **14:29 Thu 28 Oct 2010**

Andy Velebil wrote:grammer

And spelling?

Please, what was my error in the above?

Posted: **14:45 Thu 28 Oct 2010**

at the just the time

And i've never said my spelling was very good

Posted: **15:12 Thu 28 Oct 2010**

I failed to see the duplicated ‘the’. Ooops. I think that’s typing rather than grammar, but an error nonetheless.

Posted: **20:24 Thu 28 Oct 2010**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38303#p38303]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Graham's recently claimed to have Colheita's as far back as the mid to late 1800s

To quote, verbatim, DRT: I thought there was a rule that members who's first language isn't English would not be prosecuted for apostrophe crimes?

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

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