ThePortForum.com

Posted: **21:00 Sun 20 Feb 2011**

DRT wrote:If not an apostrophe crime why is it here?

{stands back and waits to be made to look an idiot}

Has my co-author looked at it very carefully? Very very carefully?

Posted: **22:26 Sun 20 Feb 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:If not an apostrophe crime why is it here?

{stands back and waits to be made to look an idiot}
Has my co-author looked at it very carefully? Very very carefully?

Assuming that there was only one Edward Sheldon involved in the business then perhaps he was a singular "Wine Merchant"?

Posted: **22:29 Sun 20 Feb 2011**

Clue: much more obvious.

Posted: **06:48 Mon 21 Feb 2011**

Should this thread be renamed "Apostrophe crimes and poor spelling" or should this last exchange be moved to a new thread?

Posted: **08:59 Mon 21 Feb 2011**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25395#p25395]Here[/url], on Tue 28 Apr 2009, jdaw1 wrote:Hence my use of this thread for general pedantic errors of a grammatical or typographic nature, especially apostrophe crimes.

I’m further expanding that to include, as BMHR suggests, spelling. That isn’t to grasp at all typos, only at egregious mistakes, such as those in a corporate logo.

Posted: **09:06 Mon 21 Feb 2011**

Ah. Wasn't looking for a spelling error and, not being the world's greatest speller, these things don't jump out at me. Got it now

Posted: **09:44 Mon 21 Feb 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:I’m further expanding that to include, as BMHR suggests, spelling. That isn’t to grasp at all typos, only at egregious mistakes, such as those in a corporate logo.

Is not the egregious false statement about the nature of the company more of an issue?

Posted: **09:47 Mon 21 Feb 2011**

Corporate branding is puff, not contractual. Expectations of veracity are, at best, modest.

Posted: **22:49 Mon 14 Mar 2011**

A grammar crime, remarked on here for lack of anywhere better.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=41096#p41096]Here[/url] AHB wrote:It seems that no-one is volunteering to help Derek and I tomorrow night. If anyone changes their mind at the last minute, we should be there from a little after 5pm.

Consider: It seems that no-one is volunteering to help I tomorrow night. Yikes, of course it should be ‟me”. Likewise, ‟Derek and me”.

As to other matter, accursed feminists de facto compel that plural pronouns embrace the unisex singular. English as they is used, as it were.

Posted: **20:48 Thu 17 Mar 2011**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=41201#p41201]Here[/url] mosesbotbol wrote:How about a couple of Dow Colheitas or Tawny's instead of the 1994 and 2007?

In [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=41206#p41206]the following post[/url] RAYC wrote:NB: JDAW is as yet oblivious - you have time to hit the edit button...

Posted: **17:18 Wed 23 Mar 2011**

Not an AC, but too good to miss...

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4447&p=41363#p41363]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:(Thank you Axel F85 is indeed an great port.)

Posted: **17:49 Wed 23 Mar 2011**

Guilty.

Posted: **11:03 Thu 24 Mar 2011**

James the Just wrote:Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

A sin of omission:

jdaw1 wrote:Glaziers Hall

Posted: **14:18 Thu 24 Mar 2011**

JacobH wrote:A sin of omission:
jdaw1 wrote:Glaziers Hall

Challenge! I checked before posting.

The front page of the [url=http://www.glaziershall.co.uk/]Glaziers Hall[/url] website wrote:

The [url=http://www.glaziershall.co.uk/about-us]‘About Us’ page[/url] wrote:Situated between the River Thames, with unrivalled views over the City, and London’s cultural Southbank and Borough Market, Glaziers Hall offer five flexible spaces for presentations, conferences, receptions and dinners.

Posted: **15:29 Thu 24 Mar 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:Challenge! I checked before posting.

JacobH wrote:
James the Just wrote:Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

I further note:

The [url=http://www.worshipfulglaziers.com/glaziers-hall-15.htm]Worshipful Company of Glaziers[/url] wrote: Glaziers' Hall

The original Glaziers' Hall was burnt down in the great fire of London 1666.

[Incidentally, out of the 40 companies with livery halls remaining, it appears that only the Glaziers, Inn Holders and Dyers are unable to use the apostrophe. The Brewers seem unable to decide whether or not to use one.]

Posted: **16:11 Thu 24 Mar 2011**

My usage agreed with that of the website of the Hall itself; but not with that of the Worshipful Company, which I admit that I did not inspect.

So is the accusation maintained, or withdrawn?

Edit: the Company’s usage is inconsistent. There is a link on the front page ‟Glaziers Hall”, and the company owning the hall is apostrophe-free. I continue to plead not guilty.

Posted: **08:30 Fri 25 Mar 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:My usage agreed with that of the website of the Hall itself; but not with that of the Worshipful Company, which I admit that I did not inspect.

So is the accusation maintained, or withdrawn?

Edit: the Company’s usage is inconsistent. There is a link on the front page ‟Glaziers Hall”, and the company owning the hall is apostrophe-free. I continue to plead not guilty.

I would have fully supported your appeal if you had used quotes around "Glaziers Hall" (please forgive the font and quotes used here, the intent is clear) when you first posted. However, in ommiting the quotes do you not leave yourself open to accusations of a personal error rather than drawing attention to the error of another?

This juror is awaiting further evidence and argument.

Posted: **09:12 Fri 25 Mar 2011**

We disagree.

Old usage and for quite some time there has been a hall for the Glaziers’ Company is sanctified by antiquity. If for ages and ages they have called themselves or their home by a name not meeting modern standards of spelling or punctuation, then that is the name, whether we like it or not, and I do not need post-modern ‘distance’ quotation marks every time I use it.

Posted: **10:13 Fri 25 Mar 2011**

I'm quite happy to accept the principle that use of the term over the ages is sufficient to excuse the name (and use of it) from modern standards of punctuation.

Their use of "Glaziers' Hall" v "Glaziers Hall" (and, indeed, "Glaziers' Trust" v "Glaziers Trust") is all over the place on the website, so I'm not sure what basis that provides for speculating that it is "sanctified by antiquity".

The current Hall was purchased in 1977, "Glaziers Hall Limited" (the legal entity that owns the property, and without apostrophe) was incorporated in 1975. I would not presume to know whether modern standards of punctuation applied back then!

At first glance, the History of the Worshipful Company of Glaziers of the City of London suggests that the apostrophe was, at least earlier in C20, used.

Use of post-modern "distance" quotation marks would have been sensible (particularly given your intimacy with this thread and your otherwise iron fist approach). Use of "[sic]" would, i agree, be over the top!

Posted: **15:11 Fri 25 Mar 2011**

Is it a good time to alert the jury to previous convictions?

DRT wrote:Not an AC, but too good to miss...

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4447&p=41363#p41363]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:(Thank you Axel F85 is indeed an great port.)

jdaw1 wrote:Guilty.

Posted: **19:49 Sun 27 Mar 2011**

The user guide to Firefox 4.0, on [url=https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/what-are-app-tabs#w_how-are-app-tabs-different-than-normal-tabs]app tabs[/url] (a good thing, not yet perfect), wrote:App Tabs are small ”“ only showing the site's icon, not it's title ”“ and they live on the left side of the tab bar.

Posted: **18:05 Thu 07 Apr 2011**

Glaziers Hall: some people and other entities have names that I would not have chosen. Nonetheless, it is right for me to refer to them by the names that they have.

The awning outside the hall is apostrophe-free.

Posted: **18:07 Thu 07 Apr 2011**

As is the plaque giving historical information.

Posted: **18:07 Thu 07 Apr 2011**

Jacob: retraction of your charge is awaited.

Posted: **09:54 Fri 08 Apr 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:Jacob: retraction of your charge is awaited.

Having considered the evidence, I think the public interest is best served but substituting the name of the Master and Livery of the Worshipful Company of Glaziers for jdaw1 on the indictment.

Posted: **10:10 Fri 08 Apr 2011**

JacobH wrote:I think the public interest is best served but substituting the name of the Master and Livery of the Worshipful Company of Glaziers for jdaw1 on the indictment.

Thank you. And I agree that the Master and Livery are very guilty.

Posted: **21:06 Sun 17 Apr 2011**

nationaldebtclocks.com/index.htm wrote:If your country is not on the website and you can provide an official source for it's national debt you can send it to info@nationaldebtclocks.com

Posted: **22:24 Fri 22 Apr 2011**

[url=http://blogs.skype.com/mac/]Updates on Skype for Mac[/url], which was being researched in the hope of finding a less space-piggish style, wrote:

Posted: **08:16 Sat 23 Apr 2011**

Am I correct in thinking that new heights of pedantry have been reached with the spotting of the use of incorrect curliness?

Posted: **08:26 Sat 23 Apr 2011**

DRT wrote:Am I correct in thinking that new heights of pedantry have been reached with the spotting of the use of incorrect curliness?

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2339#p2339]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2330#2330]Here[/url] Ghandih wrote:include myself among ‘em

Posted: **08:41 Sat 23 Apr 2011**

Oh well, at least I get half a point for recognising the mistake.

Posted: **16:46 Wed 18 May 2011**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4907&p=42748#p42748]Here[/url] an idiot wrote:The Symington's are also producing Dow Bomfim and Cockburn Canais from 2009.

Posted: **22:02 Mon 06 Jun 2011**

[url=http://www.davy.co.uk/p/wineshop-buy-online/dessert-wines-fortified-wines-and-spirits/port/grahamand-039-s-crusted-port-2003.html]Here[/url] Davy's wrote:It is unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage.

Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

Posted: **22:11 Mon 06 Jun 2011**

RAYC wrote:Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the ‟it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

Posted: **07:41 Tue 07 Jun 2011**

JacobH wrote:More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the ‟it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

You ‟would” say? Under what hypothetical circumstances would you say that? I think you do say it. And say it without a terminating full stop.

And, indeed, were right to say it.

Posted: **18:53 Tue 07 Jun 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:I think you do say it. And say it without a terminating full stop.

No, not at all. I may have thought, written and posted the comment but have not, yet, said it. Therefore, the conditional is correct: were I to be asked, orally, I would say...

I concede the second point, however.

Posted: **22:40 Tue 07 Jun 2011**

RAYC wrote:
[url=http://www.davy.co.uk/p/wineshop-buy-online/dessert-wines-fortified-wines-and-spirits/port/grahamand-039-s-crusted-port-2003.html]Here[/url] Davy's wrote:It is unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage.
Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

I would need to review the regulations in detail to be sure, but I believe that the statement is in fact incorrect.

It is not unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage. By definition, is it not impossible? In layman's terms, crusted Port is a blend of Vintage Ports from multiple vintages. When bottled from a single vintage it is called Vintage Port.

Posted: **23:53 Tue 07 Jun 2011**

A Port made to Vintage standards, but not submitted for IVDP approval, is a single-vintage crusted. For example the cork of that which we might wish to call ‟Cockburn 1977” is branded ‟Cockburn Crusted”.

Posted: **10:25 Wed 08 Jun 2011**

I had assumed the definition was similar to Julian’s (though thought that oddities were usually sold as basic rubies). However, reading the regulations suggests the layman’s term is written into law since crusted Port is obtained from ‟de vinhos de diversos anos”. Interestingly, it is also a requirement that the wine forms a crust on the side of the bottle: ‟formaçÃ£o de depÃ³sito (crosta) na parede da garrafa”. I wonder how the IVDP goes about testing that?

Posted: **11:17 Wed 08 Jun 2011**

JacobH wrote:More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the ‟it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

jdaw1 wrote:And, indeed, were right to say it.

In any event, I disagree. In context, there is the clear implication that the 2003 Graham's crusted is - unusually - from a single vintage. It is only from a very narrow reading of the statement (ignoring all context) that it could be viewed as entirely correct.

That is an interesting fact about the Cockburn 1977 cork though.

Posted: **14:17 Wed 08 Jun 2011**

JacobH wrote: Interestingly, it is also a requirement that the wine forms a crust on the side of the bottle: ‟formaçÃ£o de depÃ³sito (crosta) na parede da garrafa”. I wonder how the IVDP goes about testing that?

Is it not safe to assume that a port thats bottled unfiltered/unfined will, as a matter of course, end up depositing a crust?

[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]

Posted: **22:50 Wed 08 Jun 2011**

RAYC wrote:[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]

I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

Posted: **09:11 Thu 09 Jun 2011**

DRT wrote:I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

Perhaps because some apostrophe criminals have drunk crusted port.

Posted: **21:31 Thu 09 Jun 2011**

jdaw1 wrote:A Port made to Vintage standards, but not submitted for IVDP approval, is a single-vintage crusted. For example the cork of that which we might wish to call ‟Cockburn 1977” is branded ‟Cockburn Crusted”.

I don't believe that the cork from a bottle that is not approved for sale can be considered evidence one way or the other.

It is my understanding that Jacob is correct - a Port that would otherwise be a Vintage Port, but which lacks proper authorization, can only be sold as a ruby Port.

Posted: **23:56 Thu 09 Jun 2011**

Can someone please post the legal definition of Crusted Port?

Posted: **09:19 Fri 10 Jun 2011**

DRT wrote:Can someone please post the legal definition of Crusted Port?

Regulamento nÂº 242 de 2010, de 15 de Março wrote:Vinho do Porto com caracterÃsticas organolépticas de elevada qualidade, retinto e encorpado, no momento do engarrafamento, de aroma e paladar finos, obtido por lotaçÃ£o de vinhos de diversos anos de forma a se obter complementaridade de caracterÃsticas organolépticas, cujas caracterÃsticas peculiares levam Ã formaçÃ£o de depÃ³sito (crosta) na parede da garrafa onde se efectua parte do estágio e reconhecido pelo IVDP, IP com direito ao uso da designaçÃ£o nos termos dos nÃºmeros seguintes.

The requirements for it to have ‟caracterÃsticas organolépticas de elevada qualidade” are the same as all special categories (except Ruby Reserve which just requires ‟muito boa qualidade”). My dictionary tells me that ‟retinito e encorpado” means ‟red and full-bodied”--also a requirement for Vintage and LBV and having ‟aroma e paladar finos” is quite common, too. The peculiar requirements seem to be that it is a blend from several years and that it forms a crust on the side of the bottle.

It may, of course, be that the definition in 1977 was different; I think Tom has said that early Malvedos vintages were sold as Graham’s Crusteds.

RAYC wrote:Is it not safe to assume that a port thats bottled unfiltered/unfined will, as a matter of course, end up depositing a crust?

I suppose so, but why not just specify that it should be unfiltered? And how can they tell that the crust will form on the sides of the bottle and not the base?

Posted: **09:20 Fri 10 Jun 2011**

DRT wrote:
RAYC wrote:[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]
I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

I thought in Meaningless Drivel relevance was irrelevant, as it were?

Posted: **17:46 Tue 14 Jun 2011**

This has become a meaningful discussion. Could a kind Admin perhaps split the Crusted discussion into the Port Conversations forum?

Posted: **19:32 Tue 14 Jun 2011**

I think it too intertwined with meaninglessness to be split. Perhaps you could start a new thread with a post quoting the relevant bits of what has been said, discussion continuing there?

Posted: **14:41 Sun 26 Jun 2011**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=43393#p43393]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:which is remarkable given it's current age...

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: Ghandi: open or close

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