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/
argh.. that'll teach me to modify my sentence mid-flow; I think it was going to be "which is remarkable given it's over 30years old". Bugger.jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=43393#p43393]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:which is remarkable given it's current age...
Or perhaps simply proof of the theory that one shouldn't compose one's website after a meeting of the Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society.RAYC wrote:A shocking double apostrophe error from, of all places, the website of the newly formed Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society:
The Society leverages off it's director's extensive contacts in the wine industry but is always keen to hear from producer who wish to introduce their wines to our members.
Not sure about the second half of the sentence either!
Or the first. I would be interested to have the metaphor in the verb to ‟leverage off” explained. Assuming they mean ‟lever off”, the image in my mind is that rather like using a chisel to open a can of paint and I am not sure the director[s’/’s] contact details really need to be treated this way.RAYC wrote:A shocking double apostrophe error from, of all places, the website of the newly formed Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society:
The Society leverages off it's director's extensive contacts in the wine industry but is always keen to hear from producer who wish to introduce their wines to our members.
Not sure about the second half of the sentence either!
I hope that’s the explanation, rather than snobbery, though considering membership prices are only available ‟on application” (like Whites but not the National Liberal) and potential members are invited to name others they already know, I fear the latter is more likely.AHB wrote:Or perhaps simply proof of the theory that one shouldn't compose one's website after a meeting of the Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society.
jdaw1 wrote:How old is this Society? Does it possess ancient cellar books?
Though I would not be surprised if it has not previously been active.Companies House wrote:OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ALUMNI WINE SOCIETY LTD
c/o WILLIAM PEARCE
[...]
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
[...]
Company No. 07011615
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 07/09/2009
Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.
One is a circle; one is a small raised lower-case ‘o’, slightly re-weighted. Not quite the same.JacobH wrote:I sometimes wonder why unicode decided to encode some of those letters separately.
Easy: Characters for copy-pasting.JacobH wrote:Anyway, I am very impressed with anyone managing to find those
Roy Hersh, in a broadcast email, wrote:too early to tell if it will win any Oscar’s
No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=44535#p44535]Here[/url] DRT wrote:A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.
{hanging-head-in-shame}jdaw1 wrote:No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=44535#p44535]Here[/url] DRT wrote:A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.
I personally find this an acceptable way to express a degree of exactness and have no difficulty with the phrase.DRT wrote:{hanging-head-in-shame}jdaw1 wrote:No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=44535#p44535]Here[/url] DRT wrote:A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.
I like this phrasing. Equally acceptable would be ‟close to”, ‟fairly precisely”, ‟almost”, or ‟about”. Also ‟very close to” would have passed unremarked, as would have ‟exactly 568.26125 ml”. I would even have tolerated a repetition of Wikipedia’s small error.RAYC wrote:[An Imperial pint] is the merest smidgen over 568ml.
I think I am with RAYC on this. If something cannot be ‟almost” an absolute, then it would not be possible to say something is ‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.jdaw1 wrote:But exact is an absolute.
As elements of â„, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?JacobH wrote:‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.
Perhaps the set could be considered as being defined by the limit of specified precision, in this case tenths?jdaw1 wrote:As elements of â„, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?JacobH wrote:‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.
Which is ⊃ℤ and ⊂ℚ: that works.PhilW wrote:tenths
What are these funny symbols? Is it just my eyesight and/or screen are bad?jdaw1 wrote:As elements of â„, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?
I seem to have some support on this one so I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.DRT wrote:{hanging-head-in-shame}jdaw1 wrote:No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=44535#p44535]Here[/url] DRT wrote:A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.
Writing in my capacity as your co-author, rather thanDRT wrote:I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.
contributor, don’t wash off the ashes.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5199&start=25#p44709][color=#0000BF][b]Here[/b][/color][/url] AHB wrote:If we run short of port, we are only a moments walk away from Uncorked.
Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?).jdaw1 wrote:One might drink about 2.8 bottles of port, and then say that the morning’s work is done.
For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.PhilW wrote:Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?)
Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.Glenn E. wrote:For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.
I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".
To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?
You're not really totally alone - "almost exactly" kind of grates on me too if I default to a mathematic and engineering context ("which is it, almost or exactly?"), but for colloquial use I don't mind it so much; any use of "almost" or "about" seems to be to be approximating from one degree of accuracy (whether continuous or discrete) to a less accurate representation (by definition discrete).jdaw1 wrote:Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.Glenn E. wrote:For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.
I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".
To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?
Only 85,000 pipes per hectare?The Drinks Business, in an article entitled [url=http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2011/09/port-quota-sparks-violence-in-douro/]Port quota sparks violence in Douro[/url], wrote:! when the licence per hectare permitted for Port production, or beneficio, was cut dramatically to 85,000 pipes from its 2010 level of 110,000 pipes.
There's been a large number left to slide recently, but this was just one too many (albeit spelling rather than apostrophe crime). Perhaps AHB was just setting a trap to lure jdaw1 out of TPF retirement![b][url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=438&start=625#p45940]Here[/url], AHB[/b] wrote:Give yourself an extra few minutes to visit the (very) small square behind Berry's where the Embassy of Texas was based during their brief period of independance.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=46330#p46330]Here[/url] DRT wrote:JDAWs bottle
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=46798#p46798]Here[/url] DRT wrote:one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.
You were quicker off the mark than I was able to be.jdaw1 wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=46798#p46798]Here[/url] DRT wrote:one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.
What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?[url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4756&start=520#p73888]Here[/url], DRT wrote:There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,
As there is no extradition treaty in place I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.RAYC wrote:What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?[url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4756&start=520#p73888]Here[/url], DRT wrote:There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,
Multiple examples in this thread, including on this page, indicate otherwise.DRT wrote:I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.
Though, interestingly, not a mistake if Ronnie had instead stumbled across one of the ≤1983 BBR own-label ports, which were indeed labelled "Berry's Own Selection".[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5611#p47462]Here[/url], Ronnie Roots wrote:Berry's Own Crusted Port (bottled 2004)